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 16
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, White House, GOP, individual mandate, Senate Appropriations Committee, Centers for Medicare, House Ways and Means, Medicare and Medicaid  
•       •       •

1652 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 5:50 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-15 06:25:50 PM
3 votes:

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 06:14:04 PM
2 votes:

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 06:04:47 PM
2 votes:
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 04:53:16 PM
2 votes:
The House is beyond worthless these days. It's all just grandstanding.
2013-07-15 04:25:55 PM
2 votes:
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 09:58:16 PM
1 votes:

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?


GOP don't remember the past (except Jesus and Raygun, but then, their distorted versions of Jesus and Raygun . . . I don't think they remember Reagan at all.)  They only remember the present and they only know what they believe benefits them.
2013-07-15 08:23:46 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-07-15 06:50:08 PM
1 votes:
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 06:37:42 PM
1 votes:

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 06:28:09 PM
1 votes:

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 06:23:43 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-15 06:09:39 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:50 PM
1 votes:
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 06:08:45 PM
1 votes:

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 06:00:29 PM
1 votes:
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 05:56:38 PM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report