If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   The House is so enraged at President Obama delaying the individual mandate that they are passing a bill to delay the individual mandate   (thehill.com) divider line 90
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, White House, GOP, individual mandate, Senate Appropriations Committee, Centers for Medicare, House Ways and Means, Medicare and Medicaid  
•       •       •

1656 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 5:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 04:25:55 PM  
Obama is delaying the requirement on businesses to provide coverage for their employees, not the individual mandate.

Delaying one without the other is retarded, especially given the reason to delay the business requirement is that they're having difficulty getting in line with the policy, while still requiring people to purchase insurance even though the GOP is doing all they can to delay the exchanges and many of the other provisions.
 
2013-07-15 04:35:30 PM  
Yeah Obama will definitely sign that.
 
2013-07-15 04:53:16 PM  
The House is beyond worthless these days. It's all just grandstanding.
 
2013-07-15 05:55:51 PM  
Can someone explain why delaying the employer mandate and not delaying the individual mandate isn't a big FU to people without employer-provided insurance?
 
2013-07-15 05:56:38 PM  
Only 9% of businesses have between 20 and 99 employees. The rest would have to dramatically change their employment in the next year to be impacted by the employer shared responsibility payment.

Of those businesses around the 50 employee threshold, six out of seven businesses with 25-49 employees already provide health insurance, and nineteen out of twenty businesses with 50-199 employees already provide health insurance. Most of them would merely have to report their offer of health insurance to exempt themselves from the employer shared responsibility payment.

What's the hullabaloo about here?
 
2013-07-15 06:00:29 PM  
They've tried to vote that down 37 times already.

Have they really forgotten about how they tried to vote it down 37 times?
 
2013-07-15 06:03:55 PM  

Kittypie070: They've tried to vote that down 37 times already.


In a row?
 
2013-07-15 06:04:47 PM  
images.sodahead.com

Oh noooo, the TeaGOP had nothing to do with this either.
It was those durn LIBRULS who were screeching SOSHULIZMS.

Laser-like focus.
 
2013-07-15 06:07:02 PM  
Since the administration delayed the employer mandate last week, Republicans have settled on a message accusing the White House of a double standard. Big businesses got a break from their mandate, the GOP argues, yet individuals are still required to buy insurance or pay a penalty.
============================================================

The employer mandate and employee mandate HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER...
 
2013-07-15 06:08:45 PM  

Serious Black: Only 9% of businesses have between 20 and 99 employees. The rest would have to dramatically change their employment in the next year to be impacted by the employer shared responsibility payment.

Of those businesses around the 50 employee threshold, six out of seven businesses with 25-49 employees already provide health insurance, and nineteen out of twenty businesses with 50-199 employees already provide health insurance. Most of them would merely have to report their offer of health insurance to exempt themselves from the employer shared responsibility payment.

What's the hullabaloo about here?


As a job creator/business owner in Oklahoma, i've been asking my republican friends this question and all I get in return is jesus and socialisms.
 
2013-07-15 06:08:50 PM  
Does it MATTER if they tried to vote the ACA down 37 times in a ROW??

Suddenly they want it enforced instead of trying again and again to kill it WHY?

Suddenly they declare it UNconstitutional to NOT enforce ACA, when they were screaming about it being unconstitutional in the first place??

Does anyone even remember those town hall meetings?
 
2013-07-15 06:09:39 PM  

IrateShadow: Can someone explain why delaying the employer mandate and not delaying the individual mandate isn't a big FU to people without employer-provided insurance?


Because the number of people it effects is tiny. Most people who do not have employer-provided insurance will actually get subsidized by the government in one form or another. Very very few people will get stuck with a penalty.
 
2013-07-15 06:14:04 PM  

IrateShadow: Can someone explain why delaying the employer mandate and not delaying the individual mandate isn't a big FU to people without employer-provided insurance?


No, I'd say that its a gift. In fact, I'll go one step further and say that we should keep the individual mandate and abolish employer provided healthcare entirely. The idea that my employer should be involved in my healthcare choices is insane.
 
2013-07-15 06:14:29 PM  
*sigh* Goddamn it.
 
2013-07-15 06:18:16 PM  

worlddan: Because the number of people it effects is tiny. Most people who do not have employer-provided insurance will actually get subsidized by the government in one form or another. Very very few people will get stuck with a penalty.


50 million people is nothing to sneeze at and even with the subsidy, you're still looking at those people spending out 9% of their income on health insurance.  That's really farking stifling to someone making $25k/year.
 
2013-07-15 06:23:43 PM  

IrateShadow: worlddan: Because the number of people it effects is tiny. Most people who do not have employer-provided insurance will actually get subsidized by the government in one form or another. Very very few people will get stuck with a penalty.

50 million people is nothing to sneeze at and even with the subsidy, you're still looking at those people spending out 9% of their income on health insurance.  That's really farking stifling to someone making $25k/year.


Delaying the employer mandate is not going to affect 50 million people.
 
182
2013-07-15 06:24:08 PM  

Aarontology: Obama <snip>

lol...done in one

 
2013-07-15 06:25:50 PM  

Kittypie070: Does it MATTER if they tried to vote the ACA down 37 times in a ROW??

Suddenly they want it enforced instead of trying again and again to kill it WHY?

Suddenly they declare it UNconstitutional to NOT enforce ACA, when they were screaming about it being unconstitutional in the first place??

Does anyone even remember those town hall meetings?


It's not difficult, really. When the President does something, it's automatically the worst thing ever. Implement the ACA? HORRIBLE! Delay a portion of the very thing they were yelling about being horrible? EVEN WORSE. No matter what the president does, the Republicans will oppose it as loudly as they can. I'm frankly shocked they haven't been yelling about his bathroom habits.
 
2013-07-15 06:26:55 PM  

IrateShadow: worlddan: Because the number of people it effects is tiny. Most people who do not have employer-provided insurance will actually get subsidized by the government in one form or another. Very very few people will get stuck with a penalty.

50 million people is nothing to sneeze at and even with the subsidy, you're still looking at those people spending out 9% of their income on health insurance.  That's really farking stifling to someone making $25k/year.


Bootstraps should cost less than 9% of their income.  If not, they're takers anyway.
 
2013-07-15 06:28:09 PM  

IrateShadow: worlddan: Because the number of people it effects is tiny. Most people who do not have employer-provided insurance will actually get subsidized by the government in one form or another. Very very few people will get stuck with a penalty.

50 million people is nothing to sneeze at


Where are you getting these numbers? Under the ACA someone earning 25K a year would be eligible for premium subsidies in exchanges as that is less than 250% of the 2013 Federal Poverty Level. Not only that, depending on how their income is earned they might be eligible for Medicaid if their state has expanded it.
 
2013-07-15 06:37:42 PM  

worlddan: Where are you getting these numbers? Under the ACA someone earning 25K a year would be eligible for premium subsidies in exchanges as that is less than 250% of the 2013 Federal Poverty Level. Not only that, depending on how their income is earned they might be eligible for Medicaid if their state has expanded it.


I'm slightly off.  The federal poverty level is $11,490, putting $25k at 217%.  At that tier, subsidies still put you at 6.5-8.4% of income.
 
2013-07-15 06:43:24 PM  
What I'm curious about is, what if I can get better insurance through an exchange and my boss is willing to put towards it my normal contribution for company health bennies?

Can I do that?

What exactly is 250% of the 2013 Federal Poverty Level?  Could some translate that into the maximum per year one could make and still be eligible for the exchange?

Bonus consideration:  Company only has 5 employees (includes the owner).
 
2013-07-15 06:44:20 PM  
Sorry, not eligible for the exchange but eligible for subsidies towards the premiums.
 
2013-07-15 06:44:37 PM  
so even if this passes the house, it is DOA in the senate.
Senate minority leader turtle mcgee has already stated that he would filibuster any house bill.

Is it just me or has the house gone batshiat crazy? again.
 
2013-07-15 06:50:08 PM  
IrateShadow:

I'm slightly off.  The federal poverty level is $11,490, putting $25k at 217%.  At that tier, subsidies still put you at 6.5-8.4% of income.

Correct, but what does that mean in practice? In reality someone getting the silver plan would pay $440 a year for health insurance or roughly $37 a month. Now, I understand that money can be tight but I have a hard time getting upset about someone who isn't even willing to invest that little in providing for their own health insurance when they didn't have any before. It is a great value for the individual.

Further, one thing that people don't realize is that the income number work off of MAGI. While the formula is complicated it basically means that anything taken off in deductions on the W-2 are not included. So if that person is setting aside money for retirement or has lots of other tax deductions their actual income for ACA purposes will be quite lower. It isn't inconceivable that some people who make 25K a year will meet the 16K cutoff for Medicaid eligibility.

In fact, if one is a smart player one would try to make that happen because not only will being eligible for Medicaid make one's net health care costs essentially zero in addition Medicaid provides better coverage than the exchanges will.
 
2013-07-15 06:55:20 PM  
its the least they can do for the President and Country that they love.
 
2013-07-15 06:56:48 PM  

suebhoney: What I'm curious about is, what if I can get better insurance through an exchange and my boss is willing to put towards it my normal contribution for company health bennies?

Can I do that?


Yes. Though you would need to discuss how this is handled with your boss. I am not an expert in the legal or tax implications all around. But in theory, yes.

What exactly is 250% of the 2013 Federal Poverty Level?  Could some translate that into the maximum per year one could make and still be eligible for the exchange?

Roughly 28K. But this is not your gross salary but your MAGI (Modified Adjusted Gross Income). Which for some people will be quite a bit less than their gross income. Note that exchanges provide a subsidy up to 400% of FPL. It's just a lot less over 250%.
 
2013-07-15 07:02:55 PM  

Serious Black: What's the hullabaloo about here?


img703.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-15 07:09:19 PM  

worlddan: IrateShadow:

I'm slightly off.  The federal poverty level is $11,490, putting $25k at 217%.  At that tier, subsidies still put you at 6.5-8.4% of income.

Correct, but what does that mean in practice? In reality someone getting the silver plan would pay $440 a year for health insurance or roughly $37 a month. Now, I understand that money can be tight but I have a hard time getting upset about someone who isn't even willing to invest that little in providing for their own health insurance when they didn't have any before. It is a great value for the individual.

Further, one thing that people don't realize is that the income number work off of MAGI. While the formula is complicated it basically means that anything taken off in deductions on the W-2 are not included. So if that person is setting aside money for retirement or has lots of other tax deductions their actual income for ACA purposes will be quite lower. It isn't inconceivable that some people who make 25K a year will meet the 16K cutoff for Medicaid eligibility.

In fact, if one is a smart player one would try to make that happen because not only will being eligible for Medicaid make one's net health care costs essentially zero in addition Medicaid provides better coverage than the exchanges will.




I can't see how this can do anything but drive up insurance costs, across the board. Makes me think of minimum wage increases.

I guess it's going to suck to be in your thirties.
 
2013-07-15 07:12:56 PM  
Republicans: Control the House.
Democrats: Too poor to own a house.

Do you see why an intelligent, successful, and attractive businessman such as myself cannot take you liberals seriously?  When you make a billion dollars in a year trading the same credit default swap 300,000 times per day, get back to me.  Until then, you're poor.  LOL.
 
2013-07-15 07:17:26 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Republicans: Control the House.
Democrats: Too poor to own a house.

Do you see why an intelligent, successful, and attractive businessman such as myself cannot take you liberals seriously?  When you make a billion dollars in a year trading the same credit default swap 300,000 times per day, get back to me.  Until then, you're poor.  LOL.


LOL!
 
2013-07-15 07:17:30 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: I can't see how this can do anything but drive up insurance costs, across the board. Makes me think of minimum wage increases.

I guess it's going to suck to be in your thirties.


You ask the right question, but not quite with the right words.

The working theory has always been that uninsured people drive up the COSTS to everyone.
They go to the ER and cant pay. They have a heart attack and spend two weeks in the hospital and cant pay.
That COST gets rolled into everyone else's bills as higher prices. Directly or indirectly.

In theory, the number of people having heart attacks stays the same, except that now everyone has insurance. So on average, the cost per heart attack should go down. Right?

Unless the hospitals keep the prices the same and pocket the profit.
 
2013-07-15 07:22:20 PM  
Wasn't the old talking point that the GOP wanted to push the individual mandate ahead of schedule because it would destroy Democrats in upcoming elections?
 
2013-07-15 07:43:28 PM  
At what point do the derp brigade realize they're the ones plunging that strapon into their own fundaments?  It can't be comfortable.
 
2013-07-15 07:55:51 PM  

namatad: StoPPeRmobile: I can't see how this can do anything but drive up insurance costs, across the board. Makes me think of minimum wage increases.

I guess it's going to suck to be in your thirties.

You ask the right question, but not quite with the right words.

The working theory has always been that uninsured people drive up the COSTS to everyone.
They go to the ER and cant pay. They have a heart attack and spend two weeks in the hospital and cant pay.
That COST gets rolled into everyone else's bills as higher prices. Directly or indirectly.

In theory, the number of people having heart attacks stays the same, except that now everyone has insurance. So on average, the cost per heart attack should go down. Right?

Unless the hospitals keep the prices the same and pocket the profit.




Maybe but my point is that their is a population of people currently not covered due to "pre-existing" condition. Plus those that won't buy insurance until they are sick. This will increase the risk to insurance companies. They will raise rates.

This is not the fix to the social security problem they are looking for.

Inflamation and infection correlate strongly with heart disease. Dental care is the solution. Plus, stop eating so much!
 
2013-07-15 07:58:01 PM  

jake3988: Since the administration delayed the employer mandate last week, Republicans have settled on a message accusing the White House of a double standard. Big businesses got a break from their mandate, the GOP argues, yet individuals are still required to buy insurance or pay a penalty.
============================================================

The employer mandate and employee mandate HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER...


LOLWUT.  They are intrinsically tied together.  In order to qualify for subsidies, you have to prove that the business you work for is not providing health care if they are an employer size 50 or larger.  By delaying the employer mandate, you remove the subsidy for those employees who work in a business not in compliance.

At least learn the law before you start using caps in ignorance.
 
2013-07-15 07:58:18 PM  

namatad: StoPPeRmobile: I can't see how this can do anything but drive up insurance costs, across the board. Makes me think of minimum wage increases.

I guess it's going to suck to be in your thirties.

You ask the right question, but not quite with the right words.

The working theory has always been that uninsured people drive up the COSTS to everyone.
They go to the ER and cant pay. They have a heart attack and spend two weeks in the hospital and cant pay.
That COST gets rolled into everyone else's bills as higher prices. Directly or indirectly.

In theory, the number of people having heart attacks stays the same, except that now everyone has insurance. So on average, the cost per heart attack should go down. Right?

Unless the hospitals keep the prices the same and pocket the profit.



Actually the number of attacks and severity are likely to go down as people are not shut out of preventative care. Our current system encouraged people to defer preventative measure until it was severe enough to warrant an ER visit.
 
2013-07-15 07:58:54 PM  
A fun task for someone closer to the source: How does this House compare to the infamous Do-Nothings?
 
2013-07-15 07:59:09 PM  

worlddan: IrateShadow: worlddan: Because the number of people it effects is tiny. Most people who do not have employer-provided insurance will actually get subsidized by the government in one form or another. Very very few people will get stuck with a penalty.

50 million people is nothing to sneeze at

Where are you getting these numbers? Under the ACA someone earning 25K a year would be eligible for premium subsidies in exchanges as that is less than 250% of the 2013 Federal Poverty Level. Not only that, depending on how their income is earned they might be eligible for Medicaid if their state has expanded it.


You could actually go look at the amount of subsidies.  The subsidy drops off quickly as income goes up.  The cost of policies have often gone up more than the qualifying subsidy.
 
2013-07-15 08:00:33 PM  

TalenLee: A fun task for someone closer to the source: How does this House compare to the infamous Do-Nothings?


The House has passed numerous bills.  Reid has them sitting in his bottom drawer refusing to even put them up for committee debate.
 
2013-07-15 08:01:49 PM  

Kittypie070: [images.sodahead.com image 350x350]

Oh noooo, the TeaGOP had nothing to do with this either.
It was those durn LIBRULS who were screeching SOSHULIZMS.

Laser-like focus.


That O in OF requires a dose of eye bleach.
 
2013-07-15 08:03:55 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Republicans: Control the House.
Democrats: Too poor to own a house.

Do you see why an intelligent, successful, and attractive businessman such as myself cannot take you liberals seriously?  When you make a billion dollars in a year trading the same credit default swap 300,000 times per day, get back to me.  Until then, you're poor.  LOL.


You're good. You're very good.
 
2013-07-15 08:08:31 PM  

MyRandomName: TalenLee: A fun task for someone closer to the source: How does this House compare to the infamous Do-Nothings?

The House has passed numerous bills.  Reid has them sitting in his bottom drawer refusing to even put them up for committee debate.


And they're stupid bills full of poison pills that the GOP passed only so they could be used in attack ads against the President.
 
2013-07-15 08:12:04 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Maybe but my point is that their is a population of people currently not covered due to "pre-existing" condition. Plus those that won't buy insurance until they are sick. This will increase the risk to insurance companies. They will raise rates.


How many of those people are there really? The 20 somethings with no insurance from their company?
The theory is that those people wont get sick an sooner than if they hadnt had insurance and they will be paying into the pool while they are still healthy.

The rates issue is interesting, esp since rates proposed in california have been completely rational and not appeared to be inflated.

More importantly, we will know real soon now.
 
2013-07-15 08:15:05 PM  

sdd2000: Actually the number of attacks and severity are likely to go down as people are not shut out of preventative care. Our current system encouraged people to defer preventative measure until it was severe enough to warrant an ER visit.


Imagine if this actually happens? That overall health spending goes DOWN because of universal coverage?!
But I want to see punishment for people who dont get preventive care.
The morans who wont take heart pills from the PILL PUSHING BIG PHARAM DOCTORS!
And then have massive heart attacks which could have been prevented or mitigated.

/I wish I had kept a link to the article about the old guy in WV that had to be airlifted out to a real hospital, all because he didnt trust them fancy meds.
 
2013-07-15 08:16:24 PM  

worlddan: Correct, but what does that mean in practice? In reality someone getting the silver plan would pay $440 a year for health insurance or roughly $37 a month. Now, I understand that money can be tight but I have a hard time getting upset about someone who isn't even willing to invest that little in providing for their own health insurance when they didn't have any before. It is a great value for the individual.


Where are you getting those figures from?  Because every calculation I'm coming up with puts the annual premium around $1800 year / $150 month.
 
2013-07-15 08:18:59 PM  

Mentat: MyRandomName: TalenLee: A fun task for someone closer to the source: How does this House compare to the infamous Do-Nothings?

The House has passed numerous bills.  Reid has them sitting in his bottom drawer refusing to even put them up for committee debate.

And they're stupid bills full of poison pills that the GOP passed only so they could be used in attack ads against the President.


I'm sorry, did you not notice the person I responded to say "infamous do-nothings".  Just because you disagree with policy doesn't mean they aren't working.
 
2013-07-15 08:20:21 PM  
IrateShadow:
Where are you getting those figures from?  Because every calculation I'm coming up with puts the annual premium around $1800 year / $150 month.

That number is correct for the total cost of the premium but does not account for the tax credit of up to $1289.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/?income-type=dollars&i nc ome=25000&employer-coverage=0&adult-count=1&child-count=0&child-tobacc o=0
 
2013-07-15 08:22:33 PM  

IrateShadow: worlddan: Correct, but what does that mean in practice? In reality someone getting the silver plan would pay $440 a year for health insurance or roughly $37 a month. Now, I understand that money can be tight but I have a hard time getting upset about someone who isn't even willing to invest that little in providing for their own health insurance when they didn't have any before. It is a great value for the individual.

Where are you getting those figures from?  Because every calculation I'm coming up with puts the annual premium around $1800 year / $150 month.


If you're a 25 year old non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare's exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By "average," I mean the median monthly premium across California's 19 insurance rating regions.)
The next cheapest plan, the "bronze" comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-c al ifornia-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

Silver plan has to be at least 250-300
 
2013-07-15 08:23:46 PM  
For thiose of you wondering about costs at various income levels for the mandated coverage, here is a worksheet from my (happily) progressive state. I would assume costs would be similar in forward-thinking stares that are actually going to implement the ACA on time.

By this calculator, my costs will be going down more than 50%, from approx. 20% of my gross income to about 9%. I'm ecstatic.
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report