In general, I thought that was well done, except he got a few things ass-backwards and left quite a few things out. I say this having read the entire damned bill. And no, I would not suggest you do so. It's mind-numbing.

wildcardjack: Obama sold your ass to the insurance companies who are allowed to keep up to a fifth of premiums. The way insurance companies can make more money now is to encourage doctors to perform more billable procedures. Doctors have already been doing this since the prevalence of insured patients meant they had to nit pick to maximize the total before insurance shaves it down.

You just reminded me that you're an idiot.

If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

DeaH: EbolaNYC: EnviroDude: vpb: EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

No you didn't get it strait. Only financially irresponsible people get fined. Ask a five year old to explain it to you.

You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance. Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Please continue

I'm self-employed, I haven't gone without coverage for 10 years. I live within my means and that includes accounting for the $1200 I pay for it every month.

And your insurance should go down when Obamacare is fully enacted. For most of the self-employed, and definitely for small businesses, the cost of insurance will go down. That is a huge boon to the middle class. I don't get why more people do not see that.

THIS.

The fact that these jackholes are screaming about how coverage is going to get more expensive is infuriating to me as someone who has paid out of pocket for a decade. IT ALREADY GOES UP, EVERY YEAR! I pay more than 2x what it was in 2002 so what the fark are they talking about??

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

If you think other people should be forced to not murder you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how stupid your argument is. There is really nothing else to say.

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

I guess I'll let this ER team out of my basement.

Sorry. I guess I just didn't think it through.

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

So then you think other people should be forced to fight your wars for you.

That is what you're saying.

gingerjet: /the confusion over plans is largely due to fark'd up government rules

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
no.

Its due to the fact that we are talking about medical care, something that takes trained professionals a decade to be ready to dive into, and then the rest of their lives keeping up on.

Its due to the fact that nobody knows exactly what they will need, and what the suggested treatment will be down the road when they get an ailment, and whether or not the insurance company will like said treatment at the time.

Its due to the fact that back when I had private insurance I once received a 70 page packet in the mail telling me all about changes that automatically occurred in my policy. 3 months later I received a small letter telling me that "oops, those changes weren't meant to go into effect in your state". I'm sure the mean ol' federal goverment is at fault for that one though, what with preventing the insurance laws in another state from forcing their will onto me in mine.

Its due to the fact that with the same policy, my two brothers and I had multiple of the same things handled by the same company when growing up under my dad's insurance. Without any changes to the policy, they tried to deny said coverage (various dental and eye procedures, as well as even a couple claims that our PCP was invalid - same PCP all those years - on the preferred list) and it involved hours on the phone by my mother to straighten things out. Did it get straightened out eventually? Mostly.

That shiat is not free market, and even if it were the sheer complications of medical care combined with the dishonest of this unnecessary middle man leave it well outside the requirement of an educated consumer and an honest seller.

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

99% chance you are a troll but I'll bite anyway. No one is being forced to provide health care for anyone. Doctors will still get paid. It's just that more people will have insurance and thus will be able to pay their doctors.

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

Mr. Lalagah, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may the FSM have mercy on your soul.

TheLalaggah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

I'm just going to start ignoring everyone who claims taxes are slavery, I think.

quiotu: Well then it's awfully convenient that the PPACA regulates insurance company profits by putting in 80-85% medical loss ratios. Basically insurers are required to spend $.80-.85 of every premium dollar on your care, or rebate it back.

We are going to have to regulate insurance companies so much in order to make this whole thing work that it just makes sense to take the leap and go to UHC. I bet you we could get that percentage to under 10% if we did that.

cchris_39: So a five year old can understand it. Ok let me give it a shot.

1. You're going to buy insurance.
2. If you don't we're going to take your money.
3. When we decide that you should buy something else, we'll let you know.
4. Unless you're a union or other big contibutor, then you will get a waiver.
5. Or some other eternally downtrodden politically correct victim that we so depend on for votes, then we'll get you out of it too.

Alrighty, thread over!

So you must be like .. 4?

Pincy: quiotu: Well then it's awfully convenient that the PPACA regulates insurance company profits by putting in 80-85% medical loss ratios. Basically insurers are required to spend $.80-.85 of every premium dollar on your care, or rebate it back.

We are going to have to regulate insurance companies so much in order to make this whole thing work that it just makes sense to take the leap and go to UHC. I bet you we could get that percentage to under 10% if we did that.

Doing that requires beating all the stupid out of the people who currently constitute the republican party. William Tecumseh Sherman demonstrated that this was done by killing those who dared to fight and burning down their nests. God got tired of waiting, and well, that explains Colorado.

Tahs4Evar: Nicely explained. It all seems pretty mild - to an outsider who lives in a country with full health cover. Now can any American give me a similarly short and to the point explanation of why this is so vigorously opposed?

/I know this is a "That's the joke son" thing, but I have to ask.

Because a certain Senator McCartney fueled his political career by turning Communism into a boogeyman, and we still haven't quite recovered from it.

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 432x392]

Apparently, health insurance is as valuable as gum.

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money.

DEATH PANEL!!!

"... and we TOTALLY promise none if this will ever change, the fees and taxes will never go up, and we'll never ever make medical care into a political football - even though we did it already.

"But we mean it this time. Honest! You can trust us! We're the government - we always tell the truth and keep our promises!"

IronTom: First, after Obama is re-elected, they TAX the everloving shiat out of the middle class


"Uh huh ... that's whatever your talking about for you."

Lernaeus: "... and we TOTALLY promise none if this will ever change, the fees and taxes will never go up, and we'll never ever make medical care into a political football - even though we did it already.

"But we mean it this time. Honest! You can trust us! We're the government - we always tell the truth and keep our promises!"

So what you're saying is that you've got nothing except for your amorphous suspicion and hate?

Seriously - if your best argument is "I hate the gubmint," then fark off.

EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

If you're one of the two thirds of Americans with employer based health insurance, nothing changes... you purchase what you've always purchased... you may well see a nice tax credit for a little more if you are below the income threshold... if your employer is a small business (less than 50), they'll get substantial tax breaks too.

If you're part of the third of Americans without health insurance, and part of the 91% of them that make less than twice the poverty line, your state government has the option of expanding medicaid to help cover you at no cost to you. (quite a purchase!)*... if you're part of the 2.9 percent of Americans making more than twice the poverty line, but not buying insurance, the government is happy to subsidize some of the cost of the insurance, which you will now be able to buy through a state-run exchange* and they won't be able to discriminate against you for pre-existing conditions... getting poor people into clinics and out of ERs will reduce, not increase doctor loads and help services... the ACA does provide for additional financial aid for nurses, and increased RRP payments for doctors serving in rural areas... so no, it isn't "without a single new doctor"... Have you seen the president smoking lately... I see you used the present term, but given that everything else in your post is purely fabricated BS straight from glenn becks ass to your mouth, human centipede style, I'm just going to throw that in with the rest.

The idea that we shouldn't engage in more efficient healthcare distribution because we're broke is like saying we shouldn't put out the fire because we can't afford a new house. I know you deeply wanted the GOP plan of "lets do absolutely farking nothing for another decade while medical costs outpace inflation four-fold," but we just don't have the money for either that or the unicorn they promised you.

o5iiawah: A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

Hint:

Companies dont pay taxes. They build the taxes into the prices of their goods and services which customers then pay. Someone please explain how prices are going to be lower. Show your work.

Show your work... why do you assume companies forward 100% of the cost all the time... taxes come and go, prices vary all the time, with the exception of a few commodities markets, I can't think of very many industries at all that allow their pricing structures to vary particularly widely... incidentally, yes, there's cost forwarding... but it's better than the reverse... what Wal-Mart and other heroes of yours do right now is just as bad... they distort their prices to be artificially low by paying such crappy wages that their employees are on food stamps, medicaid, and welfare even while working at these poverty wages... I won't be particularly sad if they are eventually forced to sell products at prices that reflect the real labor cost and inputs into selling the goods... I'm kind of surprised you're so happy to have it the current way too... it used to be that conservatives were pro-work and anti-welfare.

acefox1: I love the other great new recycled talking point by the righties.

"Did you actually READ the entire Obamacare bill??? Well if you didn't read it then you don't know what you are talking about."

And just like always we're having the best ice cream argument.

Tell them that yes, you did... and even if you could only read three pages a day, you'd be done by now too.

quiotu: Basically insurers are required to spend $.80-.85 of every premium dollar on your care, or rebate it back.

That's a good idea on paper, but without the government directly managing their money for them I simply don't believe an insurance company will ever pay a rebate unless the courts do it for them after their assets are seized and liquidated. In other words I think insurance companies will continue to act like insurance companies.

We've already been through this with debit card fees. A regulation fixed the price on transaction fees, so banks started charging customers a fee to make up for it. You probably remember the pissing and moaning about Bank of America doing it. In the end they caved when they lost customers over it. But there wasn't a law that says you have to do business with them.

paygun: quiotu: Basically insurers are required to spend $.80-.85 of every premium dollar on your care, or rebate it back.

That's a good idea on paper, but without the government directly managing their money for them I simply don't believe an insurance company will ever pay a rebate unless the courts do it for them after their assets are seized and liquidated. In other words I think insurance companies will continue to act like insurance companies.

We've already been through this with debit card fees. A regulation fixed the price on transaction fees, so banks started charging customers a fee to make up for it. You probably remember the pissing and moaning about Bank of America doing it. In the end they caved when they lost customers over it. But there wasn't a law that says you have to do business with them.

It does motivate insurers to take on more expensive patients (like me, with MS) because they can boost how much money they can get in that 20% margin by taking on some of the patients who had been, to that point, less desirable.

vygramul: Mr.Insightful: but I did take a number of econ courses in college,

You seem to have forgotten your micro.

So when the tax rate goes up, the supply/demand point doesn't change, and the company has to pay the tax out of their own pocket.

Not true. The consumer and the corporation both suffer a difference. p* goes up. q* shifts left. Fewer units are sold, at a higher price. The consumers pay more and the company gets less. The government collects q*t in taxes, and you get some amount of deadweight loss.

P* only goes up when you get to negative profits. By definition, this doesn't happen when you are talking about a tax ON profits, since they must be positive for there to be a tax. Ergo, a tax on profits does not allow the company to "pass on" the tax to the consumer, unless for some strange reason they were not already charging as much as the market would bear - which is absurd. A per-item tax will also not shift P*, so long as the good or service remains profitable.

For non-economists, let me explain it this way. Say it was your business to go to the beach every day and sell hotdogs. Your vendor brings back $100 in profit, selling 100 hot dogs for $2 each. You know for a fact that if you raise your price to $3, you will sell so many fewer hot dogs, that you won't make that $100 in profit. Selling 100 hot dogs for $2 each is the perfect price point.

Now the mean old U.S. government comes along and taxes you at the rate of $10 per day, for beach cleanup. Are you going to raise your price? Fire your vendor? You're still making $90 per day. And the same rules apply: if you raise your prices, you will still be making less than if you keep them exactly where they are.

Now if the government starts taxing you at $90 per day, then you might start thinking about another line of work. And if they tax you at $120 per day, you're being literally taxed out of business. But this simply doesn't happen these days. Most of this whining is about very small percentages.

Mind you, that beach cleanup isn't necessarily bad. If a large number of customers start coming in to the now clean beaches, then you may end up making a larger profit than you would have otherwise. In the case of a health care tax, it might lower your vendor costs.

This depends on the exact situation, however, how the tax is applied, what exactly it is used for. And anyone who makes a grand sweeping generalization "government good"/"government bad" is completely talking out of their ass.

Mr.Insightful: vygramul: Mr.Insightful: but I did take a number of econ courses in college,

You seem to have forgotten your micro.

So when the tax rate goes up, the supply/demand point doesn't change, and the company has to pay the tax out of their own pocket.

Not true. The consumer and the corporation both suffer a difference. p* goes up. q* shifts left. Fewer units are sold, at a higher price. The consumers pay more and the company gets less. The government collects q*t in taxes, and you get some amount of deadweight loss.

P* only goes up when you get to negative profits. By definition, this doesn't happen when you are talking about a tax ON profits, since they must be positive for there to be a tax. Ergo, a tax on profits does not allow the company to "pass on" the tax to the consumer, unless for some strange reason they were not already charging as much as the market would bear - which is absurd. A per-item tax will also not shift P*, so long as the good or service remains profitable.

For non-economists, let me explain it this way. Say it was your business to go to the beach every day and sell hotdogs. Your vendor brings back $100 in profit, selling 100 hot dogs for $2 each. You know for a fact that if you raise your price to $3, you will sell so many fewer hot dogs, that you won't make that $100 in profit. Selling 100 hot dogs for $2 each is the perfect price point.

Now the mean old U.S. government comes along and taxes you at the rate of $10 per day, for beach cleanup. Are you going to raise your price? Fire your vendor? You're still making $90 per day. And the same rules apply: if you raise your prices, you will still be making less than if you keep them exactly where they are.

Now if the government starts taxing you at $90 per day, then you might start thinking about another line of work. And if they tax you at $120 per day, you're being literally taxed out of business. But this simply doesn't happen these days. Most of this whining is about very small p ...

Cost forwarding doesn't only start when things are unprofitable... I'm not sure whose econ course you took, but you definitely would have failed mine. The reality is that yes, consumers will pay a portion of this cost... but the part the idiots are missing is that consumers were already paying this cost, just not at the store... whether you pay for the cost of the inputs, in this case, the healthy workers, at the store (Obamacare), or you just pay for the good at the store, then get jacked for the price of the input in your tax bill (Medicaid usage by employed persons prior to Obamacare), you're gonna pay. So yes, there will be cost forwarding, even if a product was/is/will be profitable... but cost forwarding isn't the evil thing... the evil thing is distorting prices to make it seem like your stuff is cheaper, only to later jack people for your labor costs by way of taxation.

IE, what ObamaCare might do under the most magically perfect set of circumstances that nobody with any sense actually expects will happen. ObamaCare was designed to do precisely what Obama himself wants to do... which is completely wreck the health care and private industry so badly that they have an excuse to force a socialized medicine system on all of us.

By the way now would be a good time to admit the following facts.

1) Obama and every other liberal was wrong about this being Constitutional due to the Commerce Clause

2) Obama and every other liberal argued this wasn't a tax and now celebrating the fact that it IS a tax.

LoneWolf343: Because a certain Senator McCartney fueled his political career by turning Communism into a boogeyman, and we still haven't quite recovered from it.

This is the sort of line that's utterly wasted around here at 2:30 AM.

/unless you're back in the ussr

randomjsa: ObamaCare was designed to do precisely what Obama himself wants to do... which is completely wreck the health care and private industry so badly that they have an excuse to force a socialized medicine system on all of us.

So we can finally catch up to the rest of the first world? That MONSTER!

randomjsa: 1) Obama and every other liberal was wrong about this being Constitutional due to the Commerce Clause

2) Obama and every other liberal argued this wasn't a tax and now celebrating the fact that it IS a tax.

Dear god, I'm about to feed it...

1) Obama nor anyone else except for the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional. Turns out that 5-4 decided it was just under different circumstances.

2) It wasn't a tax until the Supreme Court declared it was. The people celebrating are doing so because we are finally becoming one of those fancy industrialized nations we so often claimed to be.

Subby here...

I expected a certain level of derp, but my expectations have been exceeded... I shared this section at work and got laughter for damn near an hour... Thank you Republicans for giving my crew a laugh fest... You are finally good for something...

randomjsa: IE, what ObamaCare might do under the most magically perfect set of circumstances that nobody with any sense actually expects will happen. ObamaCare was designed to do precisely what Obama himself wants to do... which is completely wreck the health care and private industry so badly that they have an excuse to force a socialized medicine system on all of us.

By the way now would be a good time to admit the following facts.

1) Obama and every other liberal was wrong about this being Constitutional due to the Commerce Clause

2) Obama and every other liberal argued this wasn't a tax and now celebrating the fact that it IS a tax.

Well crap, did someone accidentally send this guy the secret Democrat newsletter?!

I can't wait for the debates when Romney starts talking crap about Obamacare and Obama reminds him that it's pretty much a carbon copy of what he did as governor of Massachusetts.

consider this: I can't wait for the debates when Romney starts talking crap about Obamacare and Obama reminds him that it's pretty much a carbon copy of what he did as governor of Massachusetts.

I wish that, after the SCOTUS ruling, Obama had thanked Romney and the Congressional Republicans for making "Obamacare" into what it is today.

Tahs4Evar: Nicely explained. It all seems pretty mild - to an outsider who lives in a country with full health cover. Now can any American give me a similarly short and to the point explanation of why this is so vigorously opposed?

Because negro.

EnviroDude: bulldg4life: EnviroDude: You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance.

Are you talking about someone that is so poor that they would probably be qualified for subsidies to purchase insurance?

No. Let's say that you are self employed as a government contractor. The years have been good. Good enough thay you over qualify. Suddenly, the government cancels your contract. Now you have to decide what you are going to pay for. Because you made to much money year to date, you fail to qualify for assistance.

Well, considering the many many millions of people who happen to be facing this situation, we'd better just scrap the whole thing. Clearly the suffering of this teeming multitude who are set up for a fall by the very same government that will force them to take some measure of responsibility for the costs of their health care (after all, you don't really believe that cancelling the goverment contracts was just bad timing, do you?) are a big enough group that all other aspects of the law must be set aside. Look dipshi@t, if you find yourself needing to choose between paying for food and health coverage, I've always got an extra spot at my dinner table. Happy to help you get back on your feet and maybe teach you a thing or two about setting aside some of that goverment contract income during the good times to carry you through the bad times.

Tahs4Evar: Nicely explained. It all seems pretty mild - to an outsider who lives in a country with full health cover. Now can any American give me a similarly short and to the point explanation of why this is so vigorously opposed?

/I know this is a "That's the joke son" thing, but I have to ask.

Because:

1) SOCIALISM!
2) Death panels! Obama will personally get to decide who lives and who dies.
3) SOCIALISM!
4) America is ruined forever.
5) SOCIALISM!

No, seriously. That's the argument.

dletter: DamnYankees: Lots of pretty good stuff in there.

I liked just about everything in there except for the $2,500 limit on FSAs. Not saying there shouldn't be some limit on FSA accounts, but, $2,500 seems low.

Except that FSAs were intended to cover what insurance won't. And with the law, insurance can only leave you high and dry for $2500.

Allowing people to put more aside before taxes could turn into a tax shelter.

EbolaNYC: DeaH: EbolaNYC: EnviroDude: vpb: EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

No you didn't get it strait. Only financially irresponsible people get fined. Ask a five year old to explain it to you.

You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance. Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Please continue

I'm self-employed, I haven't gone without coverage for 10 years. I live within my means and that includes accounting for the $1200 I pay for it every month.

And your insurance should go down when Obamacare is fully enacted. For most of the self-employed, and definitely for small businesses, the cost of insurance will go down. That is a huge boon to the middle class. I don't get why more people do not see that.

THIS.

The fact that these jackholes are screaming about how coverage is going to get more expensive is infuriating to me as someone who has paid out of pocket for a decade. IT ALREADY GOES UP, EVERY YEAR! I pay more than 2x what it was in 2002 so what the fark are they talking about??

Rates are going to go up relatively more than they would habe if it werent for ACA.
It goes up every year because medical costs are going up and
you are getting older, making you a higher risk (I assume you aren't in a group plan if youre saying you're "paying out of pocket").

After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

EnviroDude: vpb: No you didn't get it strait. Only financially irresponsible people get fined. Ask a five year old to explain it to you.

You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance. Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Please continue

If a self-employed type is having to choose between food and insurance, they probably qualify for medicaid. People with HSAs already have insurance.