or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies - Page 15

post #253 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

So the guy who is complaining that people need to save for their own retirement doesn't actually pay for other people's retirement and gets his own from the tax payers?  ;-)   Or by "state retirement account" do you mean an IRA, 401k sort of thing?

 

-OPERs, Ohio Public Employee Retirement, basically I have a 401K. My employer puts in a certain percentage, and I also am required to put in a percentage. I don't have a say in it. Its not like a private sector match, were the employer will match what you put in, only if you put something in. A certain percentage is taken out of my paycheck no matter what, then my employer puts in their own percentage as well. It is a high percentage, on both parts. So I am paying my share. Plus I put in an extra percentage in another 457 account, basically a public 401K offered through my employer. So you could say I am personally putting in above and beyond what most people do. I am also loosing a certain percentage to a health retirement account I wont have access to because I am not in the Pension option for OPERS. But having mobility of my own money is more important than that piece of the pie. I'm not sticking around for 30+ years.

 

Yes my salary comes from the tax payers, but so does everyone's salary when they buy a product.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


Keep your government hands off of my Medicare!!

 

 

Umm Government created Medicare, it is in their hands already :dance: 

post #254 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Umm Government created Medicare, it is in their hands already c3_clap.gif  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072703066_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009072703107

"At a recent town-hall meeting in suburban Simpsonville, a man stood up and told Rep. Robert Inglis (R-S.C.) to "keep your government hands off my Medicare.""
post #255 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072703066_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009072703107

"At a recent town-hall meeting in suburban Simpsonville, a man stood up and told Rep. Robert Inglis (R-S.C.) to "keep your government hands off my Medicare.""

 

Yea that doesn't surprise me.

post #256 of 298

As is typical, the whole story is not told about cancellations:

 

From the Sebelius hearing today:

 

"Some of the rants bordered on the comical. Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, brandished his “cancellation” letter and demanded that Ms. Sebelius nullify the health law for all residents of his congressional district.

Most lawmakers mentioned President Obama’s unfortunate blanket statement that all Americans would be allowed to keep their insurance policies if they liked them. He failed to make an exception for inadequate policies that don’t meet the new minimum standards.

But in between lashings, Ms. Sebelius managed to make an important point. Yes, some people will be forced to upgrade their policies, she said. But that’s preferable to the status quo before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, when insurers could cancel policies on a whim.

 

_______

 

What some of these reports do not tell you is that these cancellation letters do not tell consumers the entire story - they don't give the consumer all of their options that will probably result in a better policy at a good price.

 

Saw a story today - another fake Obamacare Scare Story - lady's policy was no longer offered because it was bare-bones, insurance company said she could have a policy that costs 65% more. 

That's where that story stopped. An analysis looking at this story stepped in and said if  she went to her CA exchange, she could purchase a better policy at a slightly lower or higher price than her current policy that was just cancelled.

___

 

I hear this misinformation from news channels and from people here, and fellas, I don't believe your stories. They are not true; you do not get all the facts; all you do is repeat what you hear on Fox or similar channels.

 

Newsflash - Fox and similar ilk channels do not report the news any longer - they report their version of the news with commentators who have an adverse interest to impartiality.

Look elsewhere for the truth ... it is out there.

post #257 of 298

Wait what, we can't trust Fox News. Wow, who knew? 

 

I guess I should cut out NY Times, MSNBC and CNN as well. 

 

Don't want to just throw the republican news agencies under the bus ;) 

post #258 of 298

And the reason that Obama said people can keep their plans is because plans existing in 2010 were grandfathered in.  People are losing plans they joined after 2010.  

post #259 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

And the reason that Obama said people can keep their plans is because plans existing in 2010 were grandfathered in.  People are losing plans they joined after 2010.  

 

Yet he gets to say that after the fact, instead of telling us straight forward that is what was happening. Typical Obama tactics, the king of vagueness. 

post #260 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Wait what, we can't trust Fox News. Wow, who knew? 

 

I guess I should cut out NY Times, MSNBC and CNN as well. 

 

Don't want to just throw the republican news agencies under the bus ;) 

I avoid watching news - I tune in to fox, can, msnbc, etc. at various times during the day, and quickly go to music or TGC if a tourney is on.

 

All of it is fairly tiring.

 

I read news.

post #261 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

And the reason that Obama said people can keep their plans is because plans existing in 2010 were grandfathered in.  People are losing plans they joined after 2010.  

 

Plans are only grandfathered if they do not change.   If the deductible, co-pay or benefits changed in any way after 2010, the policy is not grandfathered.

 

BTW, NBC, not Fox News ran a big piece on this just the other day..   http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

post #262 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

I'm not sure that that's right.  I don't think the purpose of the ACA was to save the gov't money.  It was to achieve universal health care, through private insurance.  

 

You must not have been listening then.   The amount of money the government spends on healthcare was brought up many times in the lead up to the vote and again during the last presidential election cycle.    But even if you really weren't listening, it would be pretty naive to think a law that mandates people buy insurance from a private company was not written that way to shift the bill from Uncle Sam to those private companies.

post #263 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

You must not have been listening then.   The amount of money the government spends on healthcare was brought up many times in the lead up to the vote and again during the last presidential election cycle.    But even if you really weren't listening, it would be pretty naive to think a law that mandates people buy insurance from a private company was not written that way to shift the bill from Uncle Sam to those private companies.

Well, if it was "brought up" then it must have been the central purpose of the law. I stand corrected.
post #264 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post
 

 

You must not have been listening then.   The amount of money the government spends on healthcare was brought up many times in the lead up to the vote and again during the last presidential election cycle.    But even if you really weren't listening, it would be pretty naive to think a law that mandates people buy insurance from a private company was not written that way to shift the bill from Uncle Sam to those private companies.

 

I'm not sure you were listening. The main "spending" argument made was not that the U.S. Government spends too much on health care, but that the U.S. citizenry spends too much per-capita on healthcare costs, and as a percentage of GDP. It's the cost for the folks, not the government, that was the selling point. I'm curious to see when you recall the Administration worried more about government spending than U.S. citizens spending. They said eventually costs would go down for everyone, but much more emphasis was placed on savings for me and you, not Uncle Sam, IMO.
 
Also, how does a new law that subsidizes health care for millions of people buying from government-run exchanges, and also increases the eligibility for Medicaid from 133% of FPL to 400% save the fed. money? If anything, people are arguing that the insurance companies will be profiteers in this new system and the government will collapse because it can;t afford to pay for the new law. That's the whole Tea Party talking point.
post #265 of 298

Not sure why the last part of my argument got waxed for the three-peat effect, but it was mainly this: how does the government save money in this deal when they're ponying up subsidies for millions of people and Medicaid enrollment goes from 133% of FPL to 400%? If anything, the costs are being shifted TO the gov't. That's the Tea Party's main rail against the law.

post #266 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

Not sure why the last part of my argument got waxed for the three-peat effect, but it was mainly this: how does the government save money in this deal when they're ponying up subsidies for millions of people and Medicaid enrollment goes from 133% of FPL to 400%? If anything, the costs are being shifted TO the gov't. That's the Tea Party's main rail against the law.

I guess that makes your head scratch about how the CBO said the law would save hundreds of billions for the fed gov't.

post #267 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

I guess that makes your head scratch about how the CBO said the law would save hundreds of billions for the fed gov't.

Not sure if you're being snarky or sincere here, but I would be happy to show you with numerous links to what they really said about the overall cost of the ACA.

 

Here's one for starters: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44190

Summary: law will cost the fed. $1.3 trillion over ten years.

 

By the way, the CBO aren't infallible. I'm a government budget analyst, too, and just because I didn;t go to Harvard or MIT doesn't mean I can't analyze a law.

post #268 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

Not sure if you're being snarky or sincere here, but I would be happy to show you with numerous links to what they really said about the overall cost of the ACA.

 

Here's one for starters: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44190

Summary: law will cost the fed. $1.3 trillion over ten years.

 

By the way, the CBO aren't infallible. I'm a government budget analyst, too, and just because I didn;t go to Harvard or MIT doesn't mean I can't analyze a law.

Savings is not the same as cost.

 

Don't take things personally. No one said anything about your skills.

post #269 of 298

In the context of this report it is

post #270 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

Savings is not the same as cost.

 

Don't take things personally. No one said anything about your skills.

I'm not taking anything personally. And I should have written "net cost," which shows that it is a loss, not a savings.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies