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

[saevel25]

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.

Originally Posted by k-troop

Keep your government hands off of my Medicare!!

Umm Government created Medicare, it is in their hands already

[jamo]

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

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.""

[saevel25]

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.

[Mr. Desmond]

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.

[saevel25]

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 ;)

[dsc123]

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.

[saevel25]

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.

[Mr. Desmond]

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.

[teamroper60]

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

[teamroper60]

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.

[dsc123]

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.

[mmoan2]

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.

[mmoan2]

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.

[Mr. Desmond]

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.

[mmoan2]

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.

[Mr. Desmond]

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.

[mmoan2]

In the context of this report it is

[mmoan2]

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.