Wait.... what's wrong with "Obamacare"?

[Kluge]

I'm kind of confused on all the fuss over Obamacare. It doesn't appear to affect me or most other people living in the US except the government now endorses a wide range of private firms and advertises them on it's healthcare.gov site.

Before, I had a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it.

Today, I have a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it. (I'm not subject to the individual mandate fees because insurance would cost far more than "allowed" in applying the fee)


The only difference now is that people with high incomes and/or no children are now subject to an annual fee (the IRS claims they'll enforce this by withholding income tax redunds, but most people subject to the mandate fees aren't going to be getting a refund, so...) if they don't buy a particular financial service the government mandates. I don't understand the fuss over this... is there some beloved insurance company not being included on the government's health insurance Craigslist, or....?

I mean, yeah, I guess I can understand being offended that the government claims it has a right to do "this," but "this" doesn't appear to be anything significant. I'm working 40h/wk @ ~40% over minimum wage per hour, and shitty health insurance is still completely out of reach because.... well, I don't even know... because it's worth preserving the life of one person with a terminal illness for two years vs. extending the life of 1,000 people by two years each?

[1714699912]

1714699912

[1714699912]

1714699912

[1714699912]

1714699912

[1714699912]

1714699912

[HeroCat]

There are a lot problems with US people and one of main problems - health care is too expensive and people are using too much medicine, when they are old. Doctor expenses can not be so high - from here starts all problems with healthcare in USA - and also with Obamacare too.

[Wilikon]

I'm kind of confused on all the fuss over Obamacare. It doesn't appear to affect me or most other people living in the US except the government now endorses a wide range of private firms and advertises them on it's healthcare.gov site.

Before, I had a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it.

Today, I have a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it. (I'm not subject to the individual mandate fees because insurance would cost far more than "allowed" in applying the fee)


The only difference now is that people with high incomes and/or no children are now subject to an annual fee (the IRS claims they'll enforce this by withholding income tax redunds, but most people subject to the mandate fees aren't going to be getting a refund, so...) if they don't buy a particular financial service the government mandates. I don't understand the fuss over this... is there some beloved insurance company not being included on the government's health insurance Craigslist, or....?

I mean, yeah, I guess I can understand being offended that the government claims it has a right to do "this," but "this" doesn't appear to be anything significant. I'm working 40h/wk @ ~40% over minimum wage per hour, and shitty health insurance is still completely out of reach because.... well, I don't even know... because it's worth preserving the life of one person with a terminal illness for two years vs. extending the life of 1,000 people by two years each?

The only difference now is that people with high incomes and/or no children are now subject to an annual fee


Define high incomes. If your position is to defend the existence of the IRS, good for you.

Eventually the comfortable bubble you are in and your "The hell with anyone else hahaha! I am good" attitude is what this government was counting on to push that monstrosity by force. Also, the lying.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/gruber-obamacare-promises/index.html

[Hodl Life]

Obamacare hikes up costs while only benefitting 3.9 million people (who would pay higher premiums that they would have before).

It completely misses all important points in reducing healthcare costs. Pharma has their hand so far up the govt. ass they can move their mouth. It's pharma that hikes up prices of drugs. TORT reform is needed, what obamacare is exactly the opposite of that, that added more litigation for doctors adding to wait times and major inefficiencies in the healthcare system.

I work in the healthcare industry, for example in the ER a patient may be flown in from another hospital where a CAT scan may have been performed, but the new hospital has to do another one which adds massively to costs. Just an example of inefficiency.

I shouldn't to pay for birth control and higher risk individuals need to pay higher premiums as that is how the market works, we aren't all inherently equal and therefore aren't going to have the same risks.

Obamacare will cost millions of jobs and has caused tens of millions to lose their health insurance. It is a very poor piece of red tape litigation and government bureaucracy that will only add to the costs of healthcare.

All it is to get votes and people dependent on the government, this is why he wants millions of illegal aliens to enter the country because he wishes to help the democratic party have their voter base expand (since the republicans are the de facto middle class white people party).

Dems supported slavery, opposed civil rights, and now enslave the negro community as well as the hispanics in government dependence with welfare.

Don't let Michael Moore fool you into thinking Cuba has an amazing healthcare system.

[Eisenhower34]

IMO the biggest problem with Obamacare is the massive entitlement that it creates. It created a large number of taxes levied on most people, more taxes on the rich and on the medical/healthcare industry. The money from these taxes is used to fund the "free" or sometimes heavily discounted health insurance provided to people who choose to get insurance on the exchanges and whose incomes are up to 400% of poverty (which happens to exceed the median income).

Additionally the subsidies will create a burden on America as a whole because over the long term they will add to the deficit (ACA is only budget neutral because it uses 10 years of taxes to fund 6 years of entitlements)

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/22/the-cadillac-tax-obama-will-all-your-benefits-as-part-of-obamacare/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/06/05/obamacare-is-victory-for-insurance-companies/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/12/obamacare-deliberately-written-with-33000-pages-of-regulations-to-hide-the-truth/

[Elwar]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

[Wilikon]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

Correction:  This is a tax on breathing brought you by liars who believe you are too stupid to understand it is for your own good...




                                ...The GRUBERING...



               

[Elwar]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

Correction:  This is a tax on breathing brought you by liars who believe you are too stupid to understand it is for your own good...

I'm more offended by the tax than how they got it passed. You can't blame ignorance and lies when a tax is being passed and people support it.

[Wilikon]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

Correction:  This is a tax on breathing brought you by liars who believe you are too stupid to understand it is for your own good...

I'm more offended by the tax than how they got it passed. You can't blame ignorance and lies when a tax is being passed and people support it.

Sure. This link is for those who keep pretending to be ignorant about 0bamacare.

[Mike Christ]

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/11/18/obamacare-is-a-bachelor-tax-that-will-fail/

Obamacare has a fatal flaw.  It requires the group that needs the least amount of health insurance on average to pay the most money compared to any other group for it.  That group is young men, particularly young single men, and young men have no reason to purchase health insurance under the Obamacare system.  For most young (single) men, the only health insurance they need is catastrophic insurance, but such a health insurance plan is considered “substandard” under Obamacare.  Health insurance plans under Obamacare have to include things that young (single) men will never use like maternity coverage.  Even though there are fines for not buying health insurance under Obamacare, young (single) men have less reason to purchase health insurance under Obamacare than they did before Obamacare.

You know, the typical leftist "we have to save the X (at the expense of young white males)" nonsense.

[Spendulus]

I'm kind of confused on all the fuss over Obamacare.....

Why?  It's dirt simple.  Obamacare cares for Obama....

[Eisenhower34]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

Correction:  This is a tax on breathing brought you by liars who believe you are too stupid to understand it is for your own good...

I'm more offended by the tax than how they got it passed. You can't blame ignorance and lies when a tax is being passed and people support it.

Well to be fair most of america saw right through the lies that were told to get Obamacare passed as the GOP saw massive gains in both chambers of congress in 2010, only a few short months after the ACA was passed.

[Wilikon]

Even a hardcore liberal like stewart gets what's wrong with 0bamacare...

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/jon-stewart-calls-obamas-latest-scandal-pretty-slimy

[Elwar]

Politician: "Something is bad"
Voter: "I don't like that!"
Politician: "I will fix it by taking money from you and spending it on whatever I want"
Voter: "Yay! I feel better now!"

[Lethn]

Politician: "Something is bad"
Voter: "I don't like that!"
Politician: "I will fix it by taking money from you and spending it on whatever I want"
Voter: "Yay! I feel better now!"

LOL! That sums up mainstream politics quite well, also I'm a bit baffled by Obamacare myself, especially as I'm British, it just seems like a glorified price comparison site to me.

[Kluge]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

*shrug* I'm excepted from withholding as well as the individual mandate and I definitely don't have the $200k+/yr Obamacare surtax. I have the joyous experience of filing as head of household with a dependent, refusing overtime because "fuck you, EITC pays me to sit on my ass." I get a 10% bonus to my "refund" by taking it as an Amazon GC and Michigan even refunds my property taxes.

[Elwar]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

*shrug* I'm excepted from withholding as well as the individual mandate and I definitely don't have the $200k+/yr Obamacare surtax. I have the joyous experience of filing as head of household with a dependent, refusing overtime because "fuck you, EITC pays me to sit on my ass." I get a 10% bonus to my "refund" by taking it as an Amazon GC and Michigan even refunds my property taxes.

Good luck with that. I got out of paying by moving out of the US.

[Eisenhower34]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

*shrug* I'm excepted from withholding as well as the individual mandate and I definitely don't have the $200k+/yr Obamacare surtax. I have the joyous experience of filing as head of household with a dependent, refusing overtime because "fuck you, EITC pays me to sit on my ass." I get a 10% bonus to my "refund" by taking it as an Amazon GC and Michigan even refunds my property taxes.

As you can see, Obamacare gives people incentives not to work (or in your case work less) and although it may seem like you are getting "free money" your standard of living is going to be lower over the long term and will likely miss out on opportunities that would significantly increase your income. 

[Wilikon]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

*shrug* I'm excepted from withholding as well as the individual mandate and I definitely don't have the $200k+/yr Obamacare surtax. I have the joyous experience of filing as head of household with a dependent, refusing overtime because "fuck you, EITC pays me to sit on my ass." I get a 10% bonus to my "refund" by taking it as an Amazon GC and Michigan even refunds my property taxes.

As you can see, Obamacare gives people incentives not to work (or in your case work less) and although it may seem like you are getting "free money" your standard of living is going to be lower over the long term and will likely miss out on opportunities that would significantly increase your income. 

The standard of living of his/her kids will be even worse... And so forth.

[Fatman3001]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care? You work 40h+ a week, at least 5 more than any frenchman, and if you get sick you´re on your own. That is completely mental. What kind of people would allow this? What democracy would allow this?

I guess I shouldn´t complain, drug companies cover all of their R&D with sales to american customers because the rest of the world have the good sense to utilize collective bargaining to lower the cost of drugs (that´s why drugs from Canada [or any other country] costs a fraction of the american stuff). So I´m good, but I still don´t understand how americans are OK with this.

Regardless of all the FUD about Obamacare, it is definitely a big step in the right direction. It is kind of weird for foreigners to watch the american debate. It seems like ordinary americans just likes being ****** up the ***, which ironically I thought was a french thing.

[Wilikon]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care? You work 40h+ a week, at least 5 more than any frenchman, and if you get sick you´re on your own. That is completely mental. What kind of people would allow this? What democracy would allow this?

I guess I shouldn´t complain, drug companies cover all of their R&D with sales to american customers because the rest of the world have the good sense to utilize collective bargaining to lower the cost of drugs (thats why drugs from Canada [or any other country] costs a fraction of the american stuff). So I´m good, but I still don´t understand how americans are OK with this.

Regardless of all the FUD about Obamacare, it is definitely a big step in the right direction. It is kind of weird for foreigners to watch the american debate, It seems like ordinary americans just likes being ****** up the ***, which ironically I thought was a french thing.

Was? No. It is still a french thing, baguette!

As you said yourself you have a free healthcare... That is not free. French big pharma are giant international powerful companies with billions in the bank. You still believe your healthcare is free?

If you are not paying for a product, then you are the product.

Teach yourself. Learn how your own healthcare is free.

[Elwar]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

[jaysabi]

I'm kind of confused on all the fuss over Obamacare. It doesn't appear to affect me or most other people living in the US except the government now endorses a wide range of private firms and advertises them on it's healthcare.gov site.

Before, I had a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it.

Today, I have a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it. (I'm not subject to the individual mandate fees because insurance would cost far more than "allowed" in applying the fee)


The only difference now is that people with high incomes and/or no children are now subject to an annual fee (the IRS claims they'll enforce this by withholding income tax redunds, but most people subject to the mandate fees aren't going to be getting a refund, so...) if they don't buy a particular financial service the government mandates. I don't understand the fuss over this... is there some beloved insurance company not being included on the government's health insurance Craigslist, or....?

I mean, yeah, I guess I can understand being offended that the government claims it has a right to do "this," but "this" doesn't appear to be anything significant. I'm working 40h/wk @ ~40% over minimum wage per hour, and shitty health insurance is still completely out of reach because.... well, I don't even know... because it's worth preserving the life of one person with a terminal illness for two years vs. extending the life of 1,000 people by two years each?

Bottom line for me: is it moral for the government to force you to buy something you don't want to buy, or penalize you for not buying it? While the law does a lot of things I might personally agree with (e.g. pre-existing conditions), the base concern remains.

[Fatman3001]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

[picolo]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Correct; when there is a State run insurance, the cost is around twice as much as when it's the private sector running it for the same or lower reimbursements, look at Canada and France

[Fatman3001]

I'm kind of confused on all the fuss over Obamacare. It doesn't appear to affect me or most other people living in the US except the government now endorses a wide range of private firms and advertises them on it's healthcare.gov site.

Before, I had a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it.

Today, I have a wide range of insurance options, but health insurance for my family would cost >20% of my monthly income, so fuck it. (I'm not subject to the individual mandate fees because insurance would cost far more than "allowed" in applying the fee)


The only difference now is that people with high incomes and/or no children are now subject to an annual fee (the IRS claims they'll enforce this by withholding income tax redunds, but most people subject to the mandate fees aren't going to be getting a refund, so...) if they don't buy a particular financial service the government mandates. I don't understand the fuss over this... is there some beloved insurance company not being included on the government's health insurance Craigslist, or....?

I mean, yeah, I guess I can understand being offended that the government claims it has a right to do "this," but "this" doesn't appear to be anything significant. I'm working 40h/wk @ ~40% over minimum wage per hour, and shitty health insurance is still completely out of reach because.... well, I don't even know... because it's worth preserving the life of one person with a terminal illness for two years vs. extending the life of 1,000 people by two years each?

Bottom line for me: is it moral for the government to force you to buy something you don't want to buy, or penalize you for not buying it? While the law does a lot of things I might personally agree with (e.g. pre-existing conditions), the base concern remains.

Most countries force you to buy some kind of car insurance to make sure that you can cover the costs if you screw up. If you get a treatable illness and don´t have health insurance it can have seriously adverse consequences for you, your family and/or your community. Not to mention that if enough people are without coverage it will eventually have a seriously negative effect on that nations GDP. 

When you ask "is it moral[?]" you can view it from a utilitarian point of view: definitely, everyone is better off. A kantian view: Well, it is by no means tyrannical and every individual is morally obliged to get some kind of coverage out of respect for their own life and the lives of others. An aristotelian view: It is not keeping anyone from being virtuous, to not have a coverage is not brave, it is foolhardy or just plane dumb.

I suspect however that what you need to know is if it is necessary from the viewpoint of the political theory of classical liberalism (americans might know it as libertarianism because you think you invented it). Here is where it gets tricky. Yes and no, die hard purists will claim that anything that comes in the way of the invisible hand makes society less efficient. Why this should apply to the US is beyond me. The US of A, although proudly capitalist, is not a particularly liberal country. Just about every sector is subsidized, shielded with protectionist trade barriers or otherwise blissfully safe from the fiddlings of the invisible hand. Most modern liberals (referred to, by some, as social liberals) will concede that much of early classical thinking is not well suited to a modern society and that a society where the majority is part of the upper middle class the benefits of everyone being covered by some kind of health care plan far outweighs the negative bits.

However, classical liberals (libertarians) are not very well represented in american politics. The main explanation for why "Obamacare" is seen as such a disaster is because GOP wants to paint it that way. Why? 1. Because after Bush Jr. they need to make people think that the democrats and their president is somehow worse. 2. Because Obama represents the kind of social liberalism that roughly 90% of GOP voters would benefit immensely from, and if they realize this then the GOP is doomed. When Billy Ray Junior The Third stands on the barricade screaming his lounges off for the right to remain uninsured he is either too dumb to even operate a door or he is being manipulated(or both).

[BitMos]

you have to pay the rest of your life and the one of your offspring for the sins that your great great great grand father did during the slavery. As such everything you own belong to the state to repair this terrible prejudice (that's the narrative) the truth is they (aka gov) want your money, they know better how to spend than you.

[Fatman3001]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Correct; when there is a State run insurance, the cost is around twice as much as when it's the private sector running it for the same or lower reimbursements, look at Canada and France

Perhaps, but cost saving elsewhere in the system means that France and Canada uses a third less than the US of their GDP on health care. And EVERYONE gets health care.

[BitMos]

nationalize everything! it's fucking pathetic... so what is left to the market? feeding the politicians what they want? Always remember you will never be on the same queue as barack or his children, you will always be a second class citizen in his system. It's the fucking truth... and if they need an organ or what ever from you (because you are the sole donor available), suicide is safer.

[Fatman3001]

you have to pay the rest of your life and the one of your offspring for the sins that your great great great grand father did during the slavery. As such everything you own belong to the state to repair this terrible prejudice (that's the narrative) the truth is they (aka gov) want your money, they know better how to spend than you.

That´s another weird thing. The state isn´t "them" or "the others". In a democracy it is "us" through our elected representatives. And you americans recently voted in a bunch of populist you-know-whats to take charge of congress. Now they are what you call "them" as if they are the enemy. You voted those dimwits in, take some blimming responsibility for your actions! The only reason you as a white male feel victimized is because you keep electing republican politicians who will sabotage any initiative to improve social mobility in "The Land of Opportunities". Blacks and native americans aren´t trying to take back what your great³ grandfather did, nor is YOUR government. That is just some nonsense some cowards came up with because the truth hurts too much. In Europe most other european countries´ tourist boards are bombarded by complaints by germans who feel offended by all the WW2 memorials they find in all the tourist pamphlets. It happened, deal with it!

[BitMos]

social mobility is a code word for working higher up the ladder of servitude. Nothing else. I don't think anyone landed on Omaha beach for this future. We all preferred to smoke weed on a beach listening to a guitar, but send to Vietnam we were. btw I hope you get paid for your posts, from the wh directly? or just a bozealot?

[Fatman3001]

nationalize everything! it's fucking pathetic... so what is left to the market? feeding the politicians what they want? Always remember you will never be on the same queue as barack or his children, you will always be a second class citizen in his system. It's the fucking truth... and if they need an organ or what ever from you (because you are the sole donor available), suicide is safer.

First of all: You ARE second class, third class and no class (dead or dying) in the pre-obama system.


But to answer your main question. There is no good reason why the state should, under normal circumstances, build cars, planes, boats, make petrol, build houses, grow vegetables, herd cows, etc. Power plants could also be privately owned and run, nor does phone companies or ISPs need to be state owned. Producers of fertilizers, oil companies, computer manufacturers, software developers, mineral mines,  I can´t go through it all here but there is plenty of space left for a fiery entrepreneur as yourself. You can even build a windmill if you want.

[I´m sorry, but this organ donor thing... what do you mean? If you are dead and you are an organ donor why do you care? And if they kill you because you are an organ donor, surely that will be controversial in any system. Why should you die rather than the guy who needs a donor? Are you afraid Obama himself is going to get hurt and they will just gun you down because you´re an organ donor? This is really toasting my thinker.]

[picolo]

nationalize everything! it's fucking pathetic... so what is left to the market? feeding the politicians what they want? Always remember you will never be on the same queue as barack or his children, you will always be a second class citizen in his system. It's the fucking truth... and if they need an organ or what ever from you (because you are the sole donor available), suicide is safer.

First of all: You ARE second class, third class and no class (dead or dying) in the pre-obama system.


But to answer your main question. There is no good reason why the state should, under normal circumstances, build cars, planes, boats, make petrol, build houses, grow vegetables, herd cows, etc. Power plants could also be privately owned and run, nor does phone companies or ISPs need to be state owned. Producers of fertilizers, oil companies, computer manufacturers, software developers, mineral mines,  I can´t go through it all here but there is plenty of space left for a fiery entrepreneur as yourself. You can even build a windmill if you want.

[I´m sorry, but this organ donor thing... what do you mean? If you are dead and you are an organ donor why do you care? And if they kill you because you are an organ donor, surely that will be controversial in any system. Why should you die rather than the guy who needs a donor? Are you afraid Obama himself is going to get hurt and they will just gun you down because you´re an organ donor? This is really toasting my thinker.]

The State invests money in the wrong places because it invests for political reasons. Also it spends more than a private entity would have and there are corruptions costs

[Spendulus]

social mobility is a code word for working higher up the ladder of servitude. Nothing else. I don't think anyone landed on Omaha beach for this future. We all preferred to smoke weed on a beach listening to a guitar, but send to Vietnam we were. btw I hope you get paid for your posts, from the wh directly? or just a bozealot?

I got a feeling the paid shills are going to get a lot more prevalent in the next year....

[Fatman3001]

social mobility is a code word for working higher up the ladder of servitude. Nothing else. I don't think anyone landed on Omaha beach for this future. We all preferred to smoke weed on a beach listening to a guitar, but send to Vietnam we were. btw I hope you get paid for your posts, from the wh directly? or just a bozealot?

No it isn´t code word for anything, it is a more precise term for what you call "working higher up the ladder of servitude". And most people want to get to get "higher up the ladder of servitude" because it means they can give themselves and the people they love more of what they want in life. And so do you unless you´re an anarchist (and remember, every anarchist is a socialist).

If the WH wants to pay me they are welcome to do so, and I don´t know what a bozealot is. Boozed up zealot?

[Fatman3001]

social mobility is a code word for working higher up the ladder of servitude. Nothing else. I don't think anyone landed on Omaha beach for this future. We all preferred to smoke weed on a beach listening to a guitar, but send to Vietnam we were. btw I hope you get paid for your posts, from the wh directly? or just a bozealot?

I got a feeling the paid shills are going to get a lot more prevalent in the next year....

Again, please show me how I can get paid for this twaddle.

[Fatman3001]

nationalize everything! it's fucking pathetic... so what is left to the market? feeding the politicians what they want? Always remember you will never be on the same queue as barack or his children, you will always be a second class citizen in his system. It's the fucking truth... and if they need an organ or what ever from you (because you are the sole donor available), suicide is safer.

First of all: You ARE second class, third class and no class (dead or dying) in the pre-obama system.


But to answer your main question. There is no good reason why the state should, under normal circumstances, build cars, planes, boats, make petrol, build houses, grow vegetables, herd cows, etc. Power plants could also be privately owned and run, nor does phone companies or ISPs need to be state owned. Producers of fertilizers, oil companies, computer manufacturers, software developers, mineral mines,  I can´t go through it all here but there is plenty of space left for a fiery entrepreneur as yourself. You can even build a windmill if you want.

[I´m sorry, but this organ donor thing... what do you mean? If you are dead and you are an organ donor why do you care? And if they kill you because you are an organ donor, surely that will be controversial in any system. Why should you die rather than the guy who needs a donor? Are you afraid Obama himself is going to get hurt and they will just gun you down because you´re an organ donor? This is really toasting my thinker.]

The State invests money in the wrong places because it invests for political reasons. Also it spends more than a private entity would have and there are corruptions costs

I agree with you to a large degree but health care is political, it shouldn´t be something you choose away. And in the case of health care all the data suggests that universal health care is much cheaper than nearly universal health care. You will find corruption costs in the private sector as well, and this varies from country to country and sector to sector.

[BitMos]

The State invests money in the wrong places because it invests for political reasons. Also it spends more than a private entity would have and there are corruptions costs

those monkeys have always a problem to understand how the efficientest ressources allocation is only possible on a free market, composed of free individual, bond by the moral conduct of a coming death, and free to look for information, to be able to make individually the best possible choice for themselves, and such provide the most diverse set of solution to problems. Remember piece of trash, the known unknown, and the unknown unknown. The Free United Swarm vs the Hive mind.  

a bozealot is a barack Obama zealot. it's someone generally who take into account the color of the skin of the person. Do you think that barack could have a single chance on a electric forum? LoL, Michelle on the other hand...

Edit: I think in fact they know that what they want isn't the most efficient allocation of resources, but to control a inefficient allocation they think will lead them to have more... with such men we would still be in caves.

[Fatman3001]

The State invests money in the wrong places because it invests for political reasons. Also it spends more than a private entity would have and there are corruptions costs

those monkeys have always a problem to understand how the efficientest ressources allocation is only possible on a free market, composed of free individual, bond by the moral conduct of a coming death, and free to look for information, to be able to make individually the best possible choice for themselves, and such provide the most diverse set of solution to problems. Remember piece of trash, the known unknown, and the unknown unknown. The Free United Swarm vs the Hive mind.  

a bozealot is a barack Obama zealot. it's someone generally who take into account the color of the skin of the person. Do you think that barack could have a single chance on a electric forum? LoL, Michelle on the other hand...

I will try to find the "efficientest" way to reply by only addressing the first part. To keep will peope alive if/when they get struck by a serious disease, you have to have regulation in place that already tilts the pool table. The health care sector needs to be well regulated in order to fill its role.  But why don´t you tea baggers focus on some of the truly destructive anti-free market practices in the US? The US almost lost their entire car industry because protectionist practices made them uncompetitive. Chrysler is now owned by FIAT!!!! The auto industry is only the most visible case, you will find many, many other areas where the introduction of some free market forces could do much more good than leaving sick people in the dust.

[BitMos]

private insurance, you want it you have it. you don't have it, you will pay, later... but at least we have a debt for the service provided.

[Elwar]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Who will be paying for those state-run hospitals and who pays the private hospitals for the national health insurance?

[BitMos]

easy those that have money. Marxism 101.

[Fatman3001]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Who will be paying for those state-run hospitals and who pays the private hospitals for the national health insurance?

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

[Fatman3001]

easy those that have money. Marxism 101.

Even a social darwinist like yourself must have heard of taxes by now.

[Elwar]

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

So...you are promoting theft.

[Spendulus]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Who will be paying for those state-run hospitals and who pays the private hospitals for the national health insurance?

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

Why would you be ashamed of taking other peoples' money for your opinion of the best ways for them to spend it?

Actually, come to think of it.  When those other people can easily refute your arguments such as "this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars" and "it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil", then you really should have second thoughts about your personal ability to opine the right to take their money.

Because they do seem better able to do that that you, don't they?

[jaysabi]

Bottom line for me: is it moral for the government to force you to buy something you don't want to buy, or penalize you for not buying it? While the law does a lot of things I might personally agree with (e.g. pre-existing conditions), the base concern remains.

Most countries force you to buy some kind of car insurance to make sure that you can cover the costs if you screw up.

The difference here is you don't have to have a car. If you have a car, you don't have to drive it. If you have a car, and you drive it, you have to have insurance. That's not the same as health insurance, where you have to have it, period.

If you get a treatable illness and don´t have health insurance it can have seriously adverse consequences for you, your family and/or your community. Not to mention that if enough people are without coverage it will eventually have a seriously negative effect on that nations GDP. 

No argument here. I agree with you. But that's not the point of my concern. The question is it moral to force someone to buy something they don't want.

When you ask "is it moral[?]" you can view it from a utilitarian point of view: definitely, everyone is better off.

If everyone is better off, everyone would already have it. Clearly, the people who don't want to buy it think they're better off without it.

A kantian view: Well, it is by no means tyrannical and every individual is morally obliged to get some kind of coverage out of respect for their own life and the lives of others.

I actually directly disagree with you here. It is tyrannical to force someone to do something they don't want to do. The use of force by the government to enforce its will against the unwilling is tyranny. As for "is everyone morally obliged to get some coverage out of respect for their community," this may a question worth exploring.

The US of A, although proudly capitalist, is not a particularly liberal country. Just about every sector is subsidized, shielded with protectionist trade barriers or otherwise blissfully safe from the fiddlings of the invisible hand.

Agreed, but then again, that's not very capitalist either. Or perhaps it's "capitalist" but not free-market. Either way, it's corrupted capitalism; crony capitalism.

Most modern liberals (referred to, by some, as social liberals) will concede that much of early classical thinking is not well suited to a modern society and that a society where the majority is part of the upper middle class the benefits of everyone being covered by some kind of health care plan far outweighs the negative bits.

On the whole, I can see this argument. Individual sacrifice for the common good is classical republicanism, but forced sacrifice isn't noble. Where do you draw the line between letting people decide what is best for the community and forcing the unwilling to comply? Just health care? What about income inequality? Surely it's bad for the society to have so many working poor, so maybe income redistribution is a necessary evil for the greater good. Prohibition is a classic example of a failed "for the common good" initiative. I would say the prohibition on drugs is proving the same.

However, classical liberals (libertarians) are not very well represented in american politics. The main explanation for why "Obamacare" is seen as such a disaster is because GOP wants to paint it that way. Why? 1. Because after Bush Jr. they need to make people think that the democrats and their president is somehow worse. 2. Because Obama represents the kind of social liberalism that roughly 90% of GOP voters would benefit immensely from, and if they realize this then the GOP is doomed. When Billy Ray Junior The Third stands on the barricade screaming his lounges off for the right to remain uninsured he is either too dumb to even operate a door or he is being manipulated(or both).

I agree here. Republican opposition to Obamacare isn't about what's good for the country. It's about what's good for Republicans. And what's good for Republicans is for Democrats to fail, because in the next election, you'll still only have two choices: a Democrat or a Republican. So the majority of American politics is painting the other side as evil or stupid because then you're the only choice left. This is why both fight so hard to keep third parties off the ballot.

[BitMos]

Even a social darwinist like yourself must have heard of taxes by now.

Social Darwinist? meaning the survival of the fittest in the realm of economics with a central bank? LoL ROFL... & much more... please... grow up. The problem is that you have to be able to predict all the future to be able to declare what is the fittest. I don't have this ability. Furthermore, you can come from apes, if you like, I don't. Taxes, did I agreed on them? Myself I always have the same message, support the troops, home front and abroad, it's tuff. Then if I have to pay for you, to have something from my pocket, that my children, because of you having it, will not have, I have to disagree. My children benefit from the performances of the Force. Thank you.

jaysabi, I must applaud you. Sublime post. You defeated him brilliantly. I am lovin it.

[Fatman3001]

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

So...you are promoting theft.

That is just childish. Despite what some of the right-wing anarchists(?!?!) may think, without the state there is no property rights, and without taxation there is no state. Unfortunately for you the state decides what is theft.

[Fatman3001]

Even a social darwinist like yourself must have heard of taxes by now.

Social Darwinist? meaning the survival of the fittest in the realm of economics with a central bank? LoL ROFL... & much more... please... grow up. The problem is that you have to be able to predict all the future to be able to declare what is the fittest. I don't have this ability. Furthermore, you can come from apes, if you like, I don't. Taxes, did I agreed on them? Myself I always have the same message, support the troops, home front and abroad, it's tuff. Then if I have to pay for you, to have something from my pocket, that my children, because of you having it, will not have, I have to disagree. My children benefit from the performances of the Force. Thank you.

jaysabi, I must applaud you. Sublime post. You defeated him brilliantly. I am lovin it.

Good for you, may the force be with you!

[Elwar]

That is just childish. Despite what some of the right-wing anarchists(?!?!) may think, without the state there is no property rights, and without taxation there is no state. Unfortunately for you the state decides what is theft.

in other words, because the state has the power...they can decide if taking by force is theft or not.

This is true, otherwise known as survival of the fittest (darwinism).

[Fatman3001]

Bottom line for me: is it moral for the government to force you to buy something you don't want to buy, or penalize you for not buying it? While the law does a lot of things I might personally agree with (e.g. pre-existing conditions), the base concern remains.

Most countries force you to buy some kind of car insurance to make sure that you can cover the costs if you screw up.

The difference here is you don't have to have a car. If you have a car, you don't have to drive it. If you have a car, and you drive it, you have to have insurance. That's not the same as health insurance, where you have to have it, period.

If you get a treatable illness and don´t have health insurance it can have seriously adverse consequences for you, your family and/or your community. Not to mention that if enough people are without coverage it will eventually have a seriously negative effect on that nations GDP. 

No argument here. I agree with you. But that's not the point of my concern. The question is it moral to force someone to buy something they don't want.

When you ask "is it moral[?]" you can view it from a utilitarian point of view: definitely, everyone is better off.

[1]If everyone is better off, everyone would already have it. Clearly, the people who don't want to buy it think they're better off without it.

A kantian view: Well, it is by no means tyrannical and every individual is morally obliged to get some kind of coverage out of respect for their own life and the lives of others.

[2]I actually directly disagree with you here. It is tyrannical to force someone to do something they don't want to do. The use of force by the government to enforce its will against the unwilling is tyranny. As for "is everyone morally obliged to get some coverage out of respect for their community," this may a question worth exploring.

The US of A, although proudly capitalist, is not a particularly liberal country. Just about every sector is subsidized, shielded with protectionist trade barriers or otherwise blissfully safe from the fiddlings of the invisible hand.

Agreed, but then again, that's not very capitalist either. Or perhaps it's "capitalist" but not free-market. Either way, it's corrupted capitalism; crony capitalism.

Most modern liberals (referred to, by some, as social liberals) will concede that much of early classical thinking is not well suited to a modern society and that a society where the majority is part of the upper middle class the benefits of everyone being covered by some kind of health care plan far outweighs the negative bits.

On the whole, I can see this argument. Individual sacrifice for the common good is classical republicanism, but forced sacrifice isn't noble. Where do you draw the line between letting people decide what is best for the community and forcing the unwilling to comply? Just health care? What about income inequality? Surely it's bad for the society to have so many working poor, so maybe income redistribution is a necessary evil for the greater good. Prohibition is a classic example of a failed "for the common good" initiative. I would say the prohibition on drugs is proving the same.

However, classical liberals (libertarians) are not very well represented in american politics. The main explanation for why "Obamacare" is seen as such a disaster is because GOP wants to paint it that way. Why? 1. Because after Bush Jr. they need to make people think that the democrats and their president is somehow worse. 2. Because Obama represents the kind of social liberalism that roughly 90% of GOP voters would benefit immensely from, and if they realize this then the GOP is doomed. When Billy Ray Junior The Third stands on the barricade screaming his lounges off for the right to remain uninsured he is either too dumb to even operate a door or he is being manipulated(or both).

I agree here. Republican opposition to Obamacare isn't about what's good for the country. It's about what's good for Republicans. And what's good for Republicans is for Democrats to fail, because in the next election, you'll still only have two choices: a Democrat or a Republican. So the majority of American politics is painting the other side as evil or stupid because then you're the only choice left. This is why both fight so hard to keep third parties off the ballot.

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

[Fatman3001]

That is just childish. Despite what some of the right-wing anarchists(?!?!) may think, without the state there is no property rights, and without taxation there is no state. Unfortunately for you the state decides what is theft.

in other words, because the state has the power...they can decide if taking by force is theft or not.

This is true, otherwise known as survival of the fittest (darwinism).

No, it has nothing to do with darwinism or social darwinism. It has to do with the legal and institutional framework required for your rights to exist in any intelligible way.

[Elwar]

No, it has nothing to do with darwinism or social darwinism. It has to do with the legal and institutional framework required for your rights to exist in any intelligible way.

I am born free. I do not need a legal and institutional framework to give me that freedom.

When you realize that your rights do not come from the government but in spite of it, then you will have a glimpse into what true freedom is all about.

[Fatman3001]

No, it has nothing to do with darwinism or social darwinism. It has to do with the legal and institutional framework required for your rights to exist in any intelligible way.

I am born free. I do not need a legal and institutional framework to give me that freedom.

When you realize that your rights do not come from the government but in spite of it, then you will have a glimpse into what true freedom is all about.

Just out of curiosity: Are you a right-wing anarchist or a socialist anarchist?

BTW: I am not from any part of the world where the word socialist is equated with fascism.

[Elwar]

Just out of curiosity: Are you a right-wing anarchist or a socialist anarchist?

BTW: I am not from any part of the world where the word socialist is equated with fascism.

I am an individual.

[BitMos]

I am an individual.

Dear Fatman, you are meeting one of my Teacher, could you please understand the chance you have to speak to such a Being. Thank you very much Elwar. I loved to read you here. It's so refreshing, it's so full of Faith in yourself, and as an extension in Mankind. Thank you very much.

Fatman you seems to be wanting to categorize anything in group, ideas, it's a waste of brain time. we are individuals born free by the Will of the Creator of the Universe, each of US unique but so close in shape and form. There isn't 2 human Being equal (or the same), with all our differences we can do great parties, hope to find the perfect imperfection in the other that complementarily will make both together perfect to fulfill our own potential that we all have in us. As soon as you force a Human Being you have to understand that you may be against the Path that God had chosen for this individual. You have to accept that none of my words are rigid or definite, it's just trying to cope with the creation of God, which is beyond the grasp of all of us combined. How many grains of dust in the Universe? How many drops of water in the Universe? Learning to love perfectly the perfect one for you is much more valuable on a finite life span. I did try to help you. Try to learn to breath and then maybe to pray.

Forcing someone to let money out for something which he doesn't want is THEFT. 101.

ex: I force you to buy my shit. so I get your BTC you get my shit. I make it law, it's legal. Do you want to do such things before your exit time? Some do... it's never an excuse. And don't worry making mistakes isn't bad, as long as you want to move toward the most beautiful ending that you could achieve, however and let me warn you, personally I think it's hard, and almost requires full time... And so when I have to waste my limited time on paying for someone else what ever, you understand that I can feel really depressed since it removes me from the time I could have shared in learning to love.

I don't think there is a point in me answering anymore, as you see it's way beyond politic or any physical matters.

Peace (and love, and flowers  )

[Fatman3001]

Just out of curiosity: Are you a right-wing anarchist or a socialist anarchist?

BTW: I am not from any part of the world where the word socialist is equated with fascism.

I am an individual.

ie. you don´t know or you don´t want people to know. Fair enough.

[Fatman3001]

I am an individual.

Dear Fatman, you are meeting one of my Teacher, could you please understand the chance you have to speak to such a Being. Thank you very much Elwar. I loved to read you here. It's so refreshing, it's so full of Faith in yourself, and as an extension in Mankind. Thank you very much.

Fatman you seems to be wanting to categorize anything in group, ideas, it's a waste of brain time. we are individuals born free by the Will of the Creator of the Universe, each of US unique but so close in shape and form. There isn't 2 human Being equal (or the same), with all our differences we can do great parties, hope to find the perfect imperfection in the other that complementarily will make both together perfect to fulfill our own potential that we all have in us. As soon as you force a Human Being you have to understand that you may be against the Path that God had chosen for this individual. You have to accept that none of my words are rigid or definite, it's just trying to cope with the creation of God, which is beyond the grasp of all of us combined. How many grains of dust in the Universe? How many drops of water in the Universe? Learning to love perfectly the perfect one for you is much more valuable on a finite life span. I did try to help you. Try to learn to breath and then maybe to pray.

Forcing someone to let money out for something which he doesn't want is THEFT. 101.

ex: I force you to buy my shit. so I get your BTC you get my shit. I make it law, it's legal. Do you want to do such things before your exit time? Some do... it's never an excuse. And don't worry making mistakes isn't bad, as long as you want to move toward the most beautiful ending that you could achieve, however and let me warn you, personally I think it's hard, and almost requires full time... And so when I have to waste my limited time on paying for someone else what ever, you understand that I can feel really depressed since it removes me from the time I could have shared in learning to love.

I don't think there is a point in me answering anymore, as you see it's way beyond politic or any physical matters.

Peace (and love, and flowers  )

Ah, I see! You are both anti-rationalists. How dumb do I feel? Yes I guess I do want to make people fit into categories in a way, not perfectly, but enough to understand them. I, like most, naturally react to inconsistencies so I see how that can be annoying to you. You don´t have to accept the label I have given you but it sure makes me feel better to have figured this out. It´s kind of like solving a bunch of lines in tetris with one piece.

[BitMos]

Welcome to my ignore list Fatman3001. You are the first one to get this privilege. I hope you are proud of yourself...

[Fatman3001]

Welcome to my ignore list Fatman3001. You are the first one to get this privilege. I hope you are proud of yourself...

I have tried to be civil (admittedly with mixed success), but if you can´t bear having your opinions shone a light on it is quite strange that you offer them so freely. Well, the best of luck to you.

[Elwar]

Ah, I see! You are both anti-rationalists. How dumb do I feel? Yes I guess I do want to make people fit into categories in a way, not perfectly, but enough to understand them. I, like most, naturally react to inconsistencies so I see how that can be annoying to you. You don´t have to accept the label I have given you but it sure makes me feel better to have figured this out. It´s kind of like solving a bunch of lines in tetris with one piece.

By only thinking of people in groups you take the lazy path forward. Which is ok, many people do not want to have to consider that each person might have their own thoughts or ideals. It is much easier to create categories and only think of those categories and work to put people into those categories.

I am an individual with my own thoughts and ideals. I have formed my thoughts not by choosing a collective and then finding out what their beliefs are. I have come to my conclusions on my own. I am myself. Nobody else. No matter how hard you try to make me the same as someone else.

[Fatman3001]

Ah, I see! You are both anti-rationalists. How dumb do I feel? Yes I guess I do want to make people fit into categories in a way, [1]not perfectly, but enough to understand them. I, like most, naturally react to inconsistencies so I see how that can be annoying to you. You don´t have to accept the label I have given you but it sure makes me feel better to have figured this out. It´s kind of like solving a bunch of lines in tetris with one piece.

By only thinking of people in groups you take the lazy path forward. Which is ok, many people do not want to have to consider that each person might have their own thoughts or ideals. It is much easier to create categories and only think of those categories and work to put people into those categories.

I am an individual with my own thoughts and ideals. I have formed my thoughts not by choosing a collective and then finding out what their beliefs are. I have come to my conclusions on my own. I am myself. Nobody else. No matter how hard you try to make me the same as someone else.

I would like to refer to [1].

Your experience is similar to that of most people who have given these things a bit of thought, and like most people your view of things fit some schools of thought better than others.

BTW: I saw your website and I really like it. It is very well laid out and the concept is awesome. Lets hope for some more bitcoin adoption waves so more people can enjoy it.

[Elwar]

Ah, I see! You are both anti-rationalists. How dumb do I feel? Yes I guess I do want to make people fit into categories in a way, [1]not perfectly, but enough to understand them. I, like most, naturally react to inconsistencies so I see how that can be annoying to you. You don´t have to accept the label I have given you but it sure makes me feel better to have figured this out. It´s kind of like solving a bunch of lines in tetris with one piece.

By only thinking of people in groups you take the lazy path forward. Which is ok, many people do not want to have to consider that each person might have their own thoughts or ideals. It is much easier to create categories and only think of those categories and work to put people into those categories.

I am an individual with my own thoughts and ideals. I have formed my thoughts not by choosing a collective and then finding out what their beliefs are. I have come to my conclusions on my own. I am myself. Nobody else. No matter how hard you try to make me the same as someone else.

I would like to refer to [1].

Your experience is similar to that of most people who have given these things a bit of thought, and like most people your view of things fit some schools of thought better than others.

BTW: I saw your website and I really like it. It is very well laid out and the concept is awesome. Lets hope for some more bitcoin adoption waves so more people can enjoy it.

Thank you, I hope it is helpful to people.

As for schools of thought, I tend to agree more with libertarians, I ran within the party for congress at one point. But I have evolved from there and understand now that it is mainly about power, no matter the structure. We live in an anarchist, darwinist, survival of the fittest world. It is the governments that have gathered the power to survive and thrive through the gathering of power from the people, using that power to continue to gather more power. Each promises different things or puts on different window dressing, but it is all the same. Even without governments we would have people coming together to combine their power and create structures to get even more power.
Fortunately Bitcoin gives people more control of the financial aspect of their lives. Hopefully that plays a major role in freeing many people from the power structures they are stuck in.

[Fatman3001]

Ah, I see! You are both anti-rationalists. How dumb do I feel? Yes I guess I do want to make people fit into categories in a way, [1]not perfectly, but enough to understand them. I, like most, naturally react to inconsistencies so I see how that can be annoying to you. You don´t have to accept the label I have given you but it sure makes me feel better to have figured this out. It´s kind of like solving a bunch of lines in tetris with one piece.

By only thinking of people in groups you take the lazy path forward. Which is ok, many people do not want to have to consider that each person might have their own thoughts or ideals. It is much easier to create categories and only think of those categories and work to put people into those categories.

I am an individual with my own thoughts and ideals. I have formed my thoughts not by choosing a collective and then finding out what their beliefs are. I have come to my conclusions on my own. I am myself. Nobody else. No matter how hard you try to make me the same as someone else.

I would like to refer to [1].

Your experience is similar to that of most people who have given these things a bit of thought, and like most people your view of things fit some schools of thought better than others.

BTW: I saw your website and I really like it. It is very well laid out and the concept is awesome. Lets hope for some more bitcoin adoption waves so more people can enjoy it.

Thank you, I hope it is helpful to people.

As for schools of thought, I tend to agree more with libertarians, I ran within the party for congress at one point. But I have evolved from there and understand now that it is mainly about power, no matter the structure. We live in an anarchist, darwinist, survival of the fittest world. It is the governments that have gathered the power to survive and thrive through the gathering of power from the people, using that power to continue to gather more power. Each promises different things or puts on different window dressing, but it is all the same. Even without governments we would have people coming together to combine their power and create structures to get even more power.
Fortunately Bitcoin gives people more control of the financial aspect of their lives. Hopefully that plays a major role in freeing many people from the power structures they are stuck in.

Amen to that

[Wilikon]

ObamaCare 2016: If you like your plan, you’ll love it when we pick a different one



Alternate headline: HHS Decides to Make Plan Choices for the Grubes. In a Friday afternoon filled with document dumps, HHS announced that its controversial auto-enrollment plan would be significantly changed in 2016. This year, enrollees who allowed their plans to auto-renew risked running up big tax bills, thanks to annual recalculation of subsidies and base rates. To solve that problem, HHS wants people to allow the Obama administration to auto-enroll them into the lowest-cost plan in their 2016 tier, regardless of what the coverage or deductibles will be:

Another proposal calls for having Obamacare customers be “defaulted” to a lower-cost insurance plan instead of their current plan.

“Under current rules, consumers who do not take action during the open enrollment window are re-enrolled in the same plan they were in the previous year, even if that plan experienced significant premium increases,” CMS said.

“We are considering alternative options for re-enrollment, under which consumers who take no action might be defaulted into a lower-cost plan rather than their current plan.”

Although CMS said it is considering allowing state-run Obamacare exchanges to implement that default option in 2016, the agency is eyeing using that option on the federal Obamacare exchange HealthCare.gov starting only in 2017.

While the defaulted option could protect customers from sticker shock once their now-pricier plan renews, the option also increases the likelihood that people will find themselves in a plan that doesn’t include their preferred doctors or hospitals.



The ObamaCare sales pitch has really progressed, has it not? We started at If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, which Politifact belatedly called the Lie of the Year once ObamaCare rolled out in 2013. After that, the White House line was If you liked your plan, it’s because you were too stupid to know what’s good for you, but you’ll like what you can pick now. Finally, we’ve arrived at You’re still too stupid to choose your own plan, so you’ll like what we tell you to like.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it follows the basic message of Jonathan Gruber ever since Congress passed ObamaCare. This system was set up by people who have contempt for Americans exercising free choice, and it was designed to remove choice in favor of elitist diktats.

Peter Suderman points out that the actual solution to this problem is to turn off auto-renewals and instruct people to enroll each year for their coverage. That’s what most employers do as well; every employer for which I’ve worked has required their employees to enroll each year in order to make sure they are informed of pricing and coverage changes. HHS won’t do that, though, because they’re afraid of the attrition:

It’s not just auto-reenrollment. It’s auto-reassignment, at least for those who pick that option. Basically, if you like your plan, but don’t go out of your way to intentionally re-enroll, the kind and wise folks at HHS or state health exchanges might just pick a new plan—perhaps with different doctors, clinics, cost structures, and benefit options—for you. And if you want to switch back? Good luck once open enrollment is closed. There’s always next year.

A hassle? Maybe. But have faith: They know what’s best.

Presumably the idea came up because, even though by some measures premiums aren’t rising by large amounts this year, premiums for many of the lowest cost and most popular plans from last year are rising quite a bit. And since HHS decided over the summer to institute auto-renewal, and since the majority of Obamacare enrollees are expected to take no action and thus stay in their current plans, the reality is that under the current system a lot of enrollees are likely to see large premium hikes, just because they didn’t shop around for a new plan.

This sort of problem was more or less inevitable with automatic renewal, which was probably instituted as a way to shore up enrollment and prevent too much attrition in year two. The easy, straightforward way to fix it would be to turn auto renewal off. But that might result in lower enrollment. And anyway, why go the obvious route when there’s the possibility of having federal and state health bureaucrats make even more choices for you?



At the moment, this is a proposal, not yet a rule change. There may be some room in it to give users the option to turn off auto-renewal, although one might imagine just how difficult it will be to find that option in a notoriously-unfriendly system.  Don’t expect HHS to back away from this plan, though, especially after having 1.3 million enrollees disappear from their system in just 5 months this year.

It’s becoming a real clown show, bro. Or maybe a clown shoe, Mary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/22/obamacare-2016-if-you-like-your-plan-youll-love-it-when-we-pick-a-different-one/

[Kluge]

You are being taxed just for being alive.

With the income tax you at least have a choice of not working. This is a tax on breathing.

*shrug* I'm excepted from withholding as well as the individual mandate and I definitely don't have the $200k+/yr Obamacare surtax. I have the joyous experience of filing as head of household with a dependent, refusing overtime because "fuck you, EITC pays me to sit on my ass." I get a 10% bonus to my "refund" by taking it as an Amazon GC and Michigan even refunds my property taxes.

As you can see, Obamacare gives people incentives not to work (or in your case work less) and although it may seem like you are getting "free money" your standard of living is going to be lower over the long term and will likely miss out on opportunities that would significantly increase your income. 

Somewhat, possibly. Income-tied welfare and tax burden makes working more hours come in at a significantly lower take-home rate. For those on full-time at minimum wage who take advantage of welfare offered, they may actually effectively reduce their take-home pay by working more and/or at a higher pay rate. This effect is more severe the more dependents you have and creates a kind of wall you run into going from lower class to higher class where your nominal pay rate is increasing but your take-home is barely moving. "Middle class" is a bit of a myth.... I guess it exists from ~$80k-120k/yr, ~2x above median income of FT workers in the US.

Assuming one dependent and filing HoH, someone earning $17k/yr (EITC sweet spot) should expect ~$21.2k take-home after EITC + ~$30k/yr in welfare benefits (mostly Medicaid, keeping in mind Medicaid in most states is outrageously superior to most private insurance plans) for a total of ~$51.2k/yr. This isn't matched until you're making >$60k annually, while earning more than is allowed for Medicaid will massively decrease effective pay rate. Factoring in compound interest, many people would be better off "deferring" pay raises until they can earn enough to get over the hump. The only real exceptions are if you have no kids or genuinely value health insurance very low compared to its costs, where losing Medicaid coverage while being excepted from the individual mandate might be preferable (~$35k-$50k/yr for this example). In the latter case, the point where the individual mandate kicks in would be the "wall" where you wouldn't want to have your pay increased (unless it comes with a reduction in hours). Of course, welfare cut-offs, allowances, and conditions vary wildly state-to-state -- YMMV. In some states, incentives are very strange... for example, you can't have more than $xxxx in a bank account in many states, so you have to immediately spend it, or take it out as cash, or possibly buy bitcoin (depending on how various states' welfare departments rule on it)... I'm sure it was a well-intentioned rule originally, though.

ETA: US census data (2010) shows 89.57% of US workers earn <$80k. I'd consider consider the middle class to make up ~4%* of US workers ($80-120k), upper class ~6.5%* (>$120k). Therefor, I don't believe in the 99%, but rather the 89.57%. ....
*US census doesn't create sub-groups for people earning >$100k/yr.

[beetcoin]

what's wrong with obamacare? kooky conservatives. we already knew how well it would work, since it had already happened in MA, and although it wasn't perfect, it was an improvement.

[Spendulus]

Welcome to my ignore list Fatman3001. You are the first one to get this privilege. I hope you are proud of yourself...

And thus Grubering comes to the Forum.

[Fatman3001]

Welcome to my ignore list Fatman3001. You are the first one to get this privilege. I hope you are proud of yourself...

And thus Grubering comes to the Forum.

You mean that guy who wrote that bill for the republican presidential candidate?

[Wilikon]

what's wrong with obamacare? kooky conservatives. we already knew how well it would work, since it had already happened in MA, and although it wasn't perfect, it was an improvement.

I don't get that. Yes some people want a single payer model. Fine. But does that mean everything is acceptable to reach that goal no matter what? Do you want to have something like 0bamacare to be remembered as The First Grubering forever? Does that mean you cannot be better humans than those kooky conservatives and need to be sneaky sleazy lying liberals to have your ideas be forced on people? How does that make you better than a conservative?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

[Spendulus]

Welcome to my ignore list Fatman3001. You are the first one to get this privilege. I hope you are proud of yourself...

And thus Grubering comes to the Forum.

You mean that guy who wrote that bill for the republican presidential candidate?

I mean you.  And by the way, this is not trolling.  I'm saying that you are bringing Grubering into the forum with this thread.  Since "Grubering" is actually a new word in English, I figured we should use it.  Why not?

[BitMos]

sneaky sleazy lying liberals

Thank you Wilikon for this. Did you ^tm it? I ask because I may use it often . I think that they missed the concept of Thou shall make War by using deception... the key word is war, not politic. Beginners. But don't worry, my mercyless friends aren't tricked by such rhetoric. the facts only.

[Spendulus]

what's wrong with obamacare? kooky conservatives. we already knew how well it would work, since it had already happened in MA, and although it wasn't perfect, it was an improvement.

I don't get that. Yes some people want a single payer model. Fine. But does that mean everything is acceptable to reach that goal no matter what? Do you want to have something like 0bamacare to be remembered as The First Grubering forever? Does that mean you cannot be better humans than those kooky conservatives and need to be sneaky sleazy lying liberals to have your ideas be forced on people? How does that make you better than a conservative?

Hey, that's not fair.  Obamacare will certainly be remembered as the First Gruber (Although I think Climate Science was actually the first...).

Here, Fatman is the Gruber.

Let him spin it.

We already know how the Gruber thinks.  But we don't know what clever nuances the Fatman may add to the lie set.  I think the novel thing about The Gruber is he comes right out and says the things that shouldn't be said, but that everyone thinks.  In a sick and twisted and perverted way...

....that's worthy of some respect.

[Wilikon]

sneaky sleazy lying liberals

Thank you Wilikon for this. Did you ^tm it? I ask because I may use it often . I think that they missed the concept of Thou shall make War by using deception... the key word is war, not politic. Beginners. But don't worry, my mercyless friends aren't tricked by such rhetoric. the facts only.

Everything I say on this forum is CC BY 4.0 UNLESS I say otherwise

[Spendulus]

sneaky sleazy lying liberals

Thank you Wilikon for this. Did you ^tm it? I ask because I may use it often . I think that they missed the concept of Thou shall make War by using deception... the key word is war, not politic. Beginners. But don't worry, my mercyless friends aren't tricked by such rhetoric. the facts only.

Everything I say on this forum is CC BY 4.0 UNLESS I say otherwise

There is nothing to worry about with Obamacare.  Nothing at all.

"There is nothing ulterior in our motives...We ask only that you trust us."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NWCD7D5n8

[BitMos]

I like BTC because it's TRUSTLESS.

[Wilikon]

what's wrong with obamacare? kooky conservatives. we already knew how well it would work, since it had already happened in MA, and although it wasn't perfect, it was an improvement.

I don't get that. Yes some people want a single payer model. Fine. But does that mean everything is acceptable to reach that goal no matter what? Do you want to have something like 0bamacare to be remembered as The First Grubering forever? Does that mean you cannot be better humans than those kooky conservatives and need to be sneaky sleazy lying liberals to have your ideas be forced on people? How does that make you better than a conservative?

Hey, that's not fair.  Obamacare will certainly be remembered as the First Gruber (Although I think Climate Science was actually the first...).

Here, Fatman is the Gruber.

Let him spin it.

We already know how the Gruber thinks.  But we don't know what clever nuances the Fatman may add to the lie set.  I think the novel thing about The Gruber is he comes right out and says the things that shouldn't be said, but that everyone thinks.  In a sick and twisted and perverted way...

....that's worthy of some respect.

Let's imagine some of the very few governmental hard drives and emails survive the post 0bama presidency (I doubt it).

Whatever they will find would make the word "nixonian" as cool as the word "whoopsy daisy" when describing scandals in future governments.

Sadly more and more people will be grubered in the future...

[BitMos]

everything will be kept... once you lie in power you become vulnerable by the "dark forces", so your lie become an asset, that may or not be exploited... we hope to be able to move beyond war to true peace.

[Fatman3001]

Welcome to my ignore list Fatman3001. You are the first one to get this privilege. I hope you are proud of yourself...

And thus Grubering comes to the Forum.

You mean that guy who wrote that bill for the republican presidential candidate?

I mean you.  And by the way, this is not trolling.  I'm saying that you are bringing Grubering into the forum with this thread.  Since "Grubering" is actually a new word in English, I figured we should use it.  Why not?

I didn´t start this thread

[Fatman3001]

what's wrong with obamacare? kooky conservatives. we already knew how well it would work, since it had already happened in MA, and although it wasn't perfect, it was an improvement.

I don't get that. Yes some people want a single payer model. Fine. But does that mean everything is acceptable to reach that goal no matter what? Do you want to have something like 0bamacare to be remembered as The First Grubering forever? Does that mean you cannot be better humans than those kooky conservatives and need to be sneaky sleazy lying liberals to have your ideas be forced on people? How does that make you better than a conservative?

Hey, that's not fair.  Obamacare will certainly be remembered as the First Gruber (Although I think Climate Science was actually the first...).

Here, Fatman is the Gruber.

Let him spin it.

We already know how the Gruber thinks.  But we don't know what clever nuances the Fatman may add to the lie set.  I think the novel thing about The Gruber is he comes right out and says the things that shouldn't be said, but that everyone thinks.  In a sick and twisted and perverted way...

....that's worthy of some respect.

This made my day, you make me sound like an evil genius. An evil genius who will manipulate the world into healing the sick and helping the poor. Maybe I can become a villain in a Marvel movie some day. Vey nice, chenquieh!

[Spendulus]

....An evil genius who will manipulate the world into healing the sick and helping the poor. .....

The Ends justify the Meanies!

Be a meanie!

[Kluge]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

[Spendulus]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?....

Does it successfully enable the buying of votes?

Other alternatives, such as a true market based solution, are not bendable to corruption, therefore they would not be proposed by politicians.

[Fatman3001]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state must take responsibility to make sure everybody has access to affordable health care is that the demand is not price sensitive. Therefore the idea of a free market within this sector is not very realistic. If you need an operation or some medicine to keep an arm, a leg, or even your life, you will pay whatever it takes. If your child is seriously injured or ill you are not going to take it to the vet and put it to sleep because you can't afford to treat the child. In that sense these american drug dealers really are like drug dealers, and it's not a pretty sight.

[Spendulus]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....

....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

[Fatman3001]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....

....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

Yeez man! Chillax a bit! Go watch a movie. I would suggest Garden State or Little Miss Sunshine, that should mellow you out.

[BitMos]

administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. ...(even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations).... Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. ...
Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

Digitalization less and less admin fees, never believe rating (mercyless), The free Market created America, what can't it do? Is there an example of a market freed by it's handlers (central banks)?.

[Spendulus]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....

....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

Yeez man! Chillax a bit! Go watch a movie. I would suggest Garden State or Little Miss Sunshine, that should mellow you out.

Triple someone's insurance costs while providing less (yes, that's me) then suggest they chill out and watch a movie.

Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective.

[jaysabi]

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin. 

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

[Wilikon]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?

Grubergate is just one of the score of scandals, frauds, and failures that have destroyed any trust in this collection of creeps by anyone except the most leftist and the most stupid, two sets which, if graphed in a Venn diagram, would be represented by a single circle.

IRS oppression. Executive amnesty. VA death lists. The Benghazi filmmaker frenzy. You’d think that statistically this Administration would have to act honestly and/or competently sometime. Instead, Obama’s managed to create the political equivalent of a broken clock that’s never right.

The liberals are fuming, infuriated that Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag. Then let out another. And another. In fact, he dumped out a whole bag of cats as new media detectives released fresh clips daily depicting his smarmy confessions that he thinks the people who fell for Obamacare are drooling idiots. No, don’t look at us conservatives – we saw through this crypto-fascist scheme from Day One. Your boy Gruber is just telling it like it is – when liberals aren’t liars, they’re morons.

Like the hip kids say, hate the game, not the single payer.

What to do? With apologies to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, the liberals in the media, which is to say “the media,” ran through the first four of the five stages of grief in record time.

Stage One – Denial: “Gruber who? Never heard of the guy I said was key to the whole Obamacare idea. And I never heard of Obamacare either. Look, a squirrel!”

Stage Two – Anger: “This is an outrage, citing the statements of a guy we spent years touting as an expert on Obamacare who says it was all a giant scam! You are the worst human being since that inhuman monster who wore a whimsical shirt to a comet landing!”

Stage Three – Bargaining: “Well, uh, Mitt Romney hired him too so it’s not so bad. Wait, what? You say that for conservatives, defending Mitt Romney over Romneycare is not a thing?”

Stage Four – Depression: “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”


http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/11/24/america-youve-been-grubered-n1921636?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

[RodeoX]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

[Fatman3001]

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin.  

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. [1] Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: [2] life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

And thank you as well for your civil responses! It is nice when someone actually gives what one writes some thought. I am not going to offer any real counter argument other than identify a couple of issues that may lead to the basis of our disagreement. [1] In order to make such a claim you need to view the world in far more relativistic terms than I am willing to concede. [2] I believe it is insufficient to view this particular right as a purely negative right. It needs to be a positive right as well, ie. if your life is at risk the state/society should be obligated to help you.

[Fatman3001]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

[Spendulus]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......

Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

[RodeoX]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

[Fatman3001]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......

Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

Yeah, it's better to trust those guys who sent you to war to find Saddams nukes.

[Wilikon]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......

Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

Yeah, it's better to trust those guys who sent you to war to find Saddams nukes.

So liberals lie better? I could agree with that...
By the way... http://news.yahoo.com/600-us-troops-exposed-chemical-agents-053000684.html

[picolo]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

[Fatman3001]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

If these exchanges really lead to more competition then both hospitals and insurance companies will have to work hard to get their business model more efficient in order to compete. That will result in lower costs and lower prices.

[Spendulus]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

If these exchanges really lead to more competition then both hospitals and insurance companies will have to work hard to get their business model more efficient in order to compete. That will result in lower costs and lower prices.

No, they won't result in "more competition", because the companies still only operate within states.  Regardless, the back door subsidies to the insurance companies will prevent any realistic sort of competition.

But please do Gruber on, it's entertaining.

[Wilikon]

Jonathan Gruber warned of Obamacare premium spike as president promised savings


Predicted massive health insurance cost increases for Wisconsin residents in 2010 report



While President Obama campaigned on a promise that his universal health care plan would lower premiums, his controversial adviser and plan architect was privately warning the state of Wisconsin that Obamacare was poised to massively increase insurance costs for average residents, internal documents show.

Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist currently under fire for suggesting the Obama administration tried to deceive the public about the Affordable Care Act, was hired by former Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle in 2010 to conduct an analysis on how the federal health-care reform would impact the state.

Mr. Gruber’s study predicted about 90 percent of individuals without employer-sponsored or public insurance would see their premiums spike by an average of 41 percent. Once tax subsidies were factored in, about 60 percent of those in the individual market were projected to see their premiums go up 31 percent, according to his analysis.


In addition, 53 percent of those insured by companies with fewer than 50 employees, would see their premiums rise by an average of 15 percent even after subsidies, Mr. Gruber forecasted. The report warned such increases could impact small companies’ decision whether to provide health insurance to their workers.

“There remains some uncertainty about employer reactions given the many forces which might impact their decision to offer insurance,” the report said.

The contrast between the Obama administration’s optimistic rhetoric on Obamacare and Mr. Gruber’s private warnings to Wisconsin is certain to attract new attention from the Republican-led Congress, which wants to know whether there was an effort by the administration to deceive the public about the true consequences of the law as Mr. Gruber suggested in a videotape that surfaced recently.


Mr. Gruber and the White House declined comment when contacted by The Washington Times this week.

The Gruber study, which was released publicly in August 2011 with little fanfare in the state of Wisconsin, was largely ignored by Mr. Obama, who campaigned in 2012 that insurance premiums would actually decrease under his healthcare legislation.

“So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it,” the president declared in a campaign speech in Cincinnati, Ohio back in July 2012, “you should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker, considered by many to be a potential 2016 presidential candidate, distrusted the campaign promises, largely because of the work Mr. Gruber had done for the state's previous administration, and has long advocated for repealing the law.

In addition to premium rate increases, Mr. Gruber’s work estimated that 100,000 Wisconsinites would be involuntarily dropped from their employer sponsored health insurance also running counter to the President’s claim at the time that if a you liked their health-care policy, you could keep it.

The study did project the implementation of Obamacare would decrease the state’s number of uninsured by 65 percent by 2016, but doing so would come at the expense of other groups.

Wisconsin’s working-class families would be forced to pay a hidden tax to pay for the purchase of health insurance for a family of four earning up to $89,400, the study said. It also showed Obamacare would shrink the numbers of people in the private insurance marketplace from 180,000 individuals to 30,000.

Mr. Walker has said he would like to see the Affordable Care Act repealed and after entering office in January 2011, he opted not to create a state-run marketplace and to instead rely on the federal one. Mr. Walker also has refused Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, refusing to accept federal aid offered under the Affordable Care Act, arguing he doesn’t trust the federal government’s pledge to cover the cost.

After entering office, Mr. Walker replaced Mr. Doyle’s Office of Health Care Reform which had been created to carry out the federal Affordable Care Act with Wisconsin’s Office of Free Market Health Care. It was that office that inherited Mr. Gruber’s study.

[...]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/

[Spendulus]

[...]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/

Field Marshall Herr Gruber!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhkQqA53v0

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

[jaysabi]

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin.  

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. [1] Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: [2] life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

And thank you as well for your civil responses! It is nice when someone actually gives what one writes some thought. I am not going to offer any real counter argument other than identify a couple of issues that may lead to the basis of our disagreement. [1] In order to make such a claim you need to view the world in far more relativistic terms than I am willing to concede. [2] I believe it is insufficient to view this particular right as a purely negative right. It needs to be a positive right as well, ie. if your life is at risk the state/society should be obligated to help you.

Ah yes, to point two, I think that succinctly states our difference of opinion. I won't offer much else but to justify my opinion a little more.

I don't believe you can force someone to help another, or that you can impose a burden on them for another's circumstances. The reason I believe this is because if everyone is created equal, you do not owe anything to another, so their burden cannot be assigned to someone who doesn't have it. That's not to say that not helping someone in need doesn't make you a bad person; it absolutely does. But the state forcing you to help others is wrong because the initiation of force is wrong.

[RodeoX]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

I actually have better coverage with a lower deductible and a higher covered amount. It was so much of a better deal that I assume I had a very bad contract before. I can't compare service though. I have not filed a claim with the new place.

[jaysabi]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare





Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

[BootstrapCoinDev]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

[Spendulus]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

Are you fucking kidding me?  Hospitals have provided emergency care by way of being funded through property taxes for what, a century?

[picolo]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

If you were paying for the care you receive or if you were paying a true private insurance in a free market you would pay less, have better care and there will still be emergency care regardless of insurance status.

[deluxeCITY]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

This is not true. The hospital is only required to stabilize you, not provide free care to you. If you are already stable then they may not accept you as a patient if you cannot pay. They also generally charge higher rates to the uninsured so if you can pay then you are paying for those who cannot.

[Spendulus]

You are protecting other people by buying health insurance. Hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of insurance status. You're protecting others from footing your medical costs. Even if you don't have medical coverage outright, you're still de-facto covered under some circumstances. The mandate fixes this loophole.

This is not true. The hospital is only required to stabilize you, not provide free care to you. If you are already stable then they may not accept you as a patient if you cannot pay. They also generally charge higher rates to the uninsured so if you can pay then you are paying for those who cannot.

I personally know of dozens of cases where county hostpitals have provided long term care for people who initially came in through the emergency room.  It may be that you don't have "a right" to long term care, someone like the doc makes a decision.

Yes, it has been the case that if you can pay at the hospital level, you are paying for those who cannot.  THAT HAS NOT CHANGED!

Virtually none of that actual problems with health care pricing and delivery have been corrected by this law which attempts to cast in stone the "rights" of the insurance companies to rape you and me under the cover of alleging it gives you "rights" to health care.

[Wilikon]

OBAMACARE'S BACK-END STILL NOT BUILT; OFFICIALS VERIFYING APPLICATIONS BY HAND



Obamacare was signed into law four years and eight months ago, yet the highly unpopular program's back-end computer systems still remain unbuilt.

The problem is so bad, health officials have been forced to perform some verifications by hand.
"Health insurers have been exasperated by the delays, as health officials verify some account and application details by hand," reports The Hill.

Far from denying the headaches caused by its busted Obamacare website, the Obama administration blamed its recent enrollment figure embarrassment on the unbuilt back-end system. When it was revealed that the Obama administration had inflated its Obamacare enrollment number by 1.3 million people, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner sent the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a letter blaming its unfinished back-end system for the inflated figures.

"Once the automated system for effectuated enrollment is functional, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will be able to more easily report the number who has paid their premiums," wrote Tavenner.

The Obama administration now claims just 6.7 million, not the widely-touted eight million figure, are enrolled in Obamacare. How many of those are among the five million individuals who had their plans canceled due to Obamacare and were forced to enroll in the program the administration won't say.

Nationally, Obamacare remains as unpopular as ever. According to Gallup, a record-low 37 percent of Americans support Obamacare.

Over the next ten years, Obamacare will cost American taxpayers $2.6 trillion.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/29/Obamacare-s-Back-End-Still-Not-Built-Officials-Verifying-By-Hand



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The back-end will never be built as 0bamacare was designed to fail. That is why they re hired the same company that built it... to fix it. Getting paid to NOT fix it. It is by design.

[BootstrapCoinDev]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

Yes, most of Repubs will push for smarter solutions than what democrats want to implement in Health Care but I wanted to point out that they would still be for a lot of Government intervention in Health Care, almost as much as Democrats.

Repubs are usually for Big military spending and Bush even throw the whole Free Market idea in the toilets when he accepted that Paulson (who was supposed to be against Government Intervention in the Economy) saved all the Banks with tax payer funds and insurance.

By the way, Democrats pretend that they are for less Big Military spending but they are not.

[Spendulus]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

Yes, most of Repubs will push for smarter solutions than what democrats want to implement in Health Care but I wanted to point out that they would still be for a lot of Government intervention in Health Care, almost as much as Democrats......

True.  I'm really not of the opinion, though, that Obamacare is a Democratic invention.  I see it as an Obama invention that he's sort of half gotten support on from mainstream Democrats.

Obamacare is rather an ideological invention.  Anything based on practical business knowledge and examination of facts would be better.  There is no question that the normal committee in the House, committee in the Senate process, followed by votes of approval and sent to the POTUS for signoff, would have resulted in a superior result.

Obama chose not to do this due to an ideological Marxist and socialist prejudice, instead opted for a budget reconcilation process which allowed passage with 1/2+1 votes.  The existing legislation never went through any committee, in either House or Senate.

Thus we can say that "Obamacare isn't a product of the Democrats" at least in the normal legislative sense.

[Grg]

Im thinking about writing a long and over-developed post about how retarded America and its fcked up politics, de-railed moneysystem, healthcare, medicine, how-to-war... and so on. But I realize I'm at a Bitcoin-Forum and I assume that if you found your way here your mind should be quite enlightened already.

So I jump all that shit and go straight to my point:
Health-care should be free and for everybody. EVERYBODY. Obama-care is a small step in the right direction, but its far from civilized. (IMO!)

Yeah, now is the time to start whining about % of salary at insurances and shit..
Let me tell you; If everyone push a % of the salary at the government and the government DONT WASTE IT AT SHIT there wont be a problem to have a working healthcare, education, w/e you want....

And to everyone still whining something like; I dont want to pay any tax. Hell no MORE tax then I do at this moment!
Make a calculation..
How much do you earn? Whats your monthly % payment for insurances and similar to keep you safe in the social society you're living in?


I live in a country where ~30% is tax up to about $40k/year. Somewhere around there tax start to ramp up to 50-something% at $70k >70k =55%~
No, Im not sure about these numbers but consider em as a guideline for how my situation is.

I dont have to care about health-insurances. The fee for any illness is $15. If I break my hip, loose a toe, smash a teeth, blast a kidney.. Ill still get it fixed (if possible) for $15.
Meds wont ever cost more then ~$1500/year.
Im allowed to study wtf I want. If I'm serious about my application I should make sure to have grades to be accepted. But $ is NEVER an issue.
I have decent/good roads to drive on. Dang, I could go on, but I think I made my point.

Curious about how I think a society should work? google any Scandinavian health and/or education-system. They are all somewhat on track.

IMO;
USA is fooked up. Way beyond repair.
I'll sit on my chair, enjoying the chaos made my human stupidity.

Bring
Me
Some
Popcorn! 

-Grg

[picolo]

Say they open up the flood gates and allow for insurance providers to sell across state lines, but Obamacare is repealed or fundamentally changed as the GOP would like. Insurance providers would begin to migrate to states with very little regulation on coverage, pay-outs, and the like.
Now you as a healthy person would snatch up this now much cheaper plan because you have very little to worry about, but the sick person wouldn't have that option because these now un-regulated insurers would refuse to cover them or propose they pay in excess of $30,000 a year for coverage. This leaves sick people scrounging the bottom of the barrel for health insurance that would more than likely be lacking.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned that in the absence of free competition across state lines, consumers fare better.

What happens now is that many states have only one or two companies operating within their borders, preventing virtually anything that might be called "competition."

Also I do not think that "operating across state lines" is equal to "no regulation".  That isn't the case say with auto insurance.

More Americans are putting off expensive medical care now with Obamacare, than previously...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/gallup-peak-number-of-americans-delaying-medical-care-over-costs/

When the State intervenes in a market, it changes the price (usually up) and the global result is almost always a loss especially if you take into account the higher taxes or debt that will be needed.

If you want to go back to a free market, it will change the way it is and there will be short term winners and losers.

But you need to go for the better long-term solution which is always having more competition.

Except that this is excluded from the possibilities because of the back door payments to the insurance companies if they "show a loss" under the ObamaScam. 

There are a large number of problems with this.

I don't think the matter is helped, rather it is hindered considerably, by the propagandic-rosy-hypnotic-"All is Great and Wonderful" meme which this thread seemed to ride on for a while.

Requires realistically looking at the problems.  Maybe the repubs can do that.  Maybe they can't.

I'd be interested in hearing a proposal from Rand Paul.

Most Repubs are for a Big Government too, Rand Paul is for following the Economical laws and allowing a healthy competition and the Free Market in Health Care.

Yes, Repubs are BigGovies, many of them.

But not usually at the expense of better, cheaper open market solutions.

For example, Repubs would be FOR health insurance operating across state lines, AGAINST forcing hospitals and doctors to publish their rates.

Yes, most of Repubs will push for smarter solutions than what democrats want to implement in Health Care but I wanted to point out that they would still be for a lot of Government intervention in Health Care, almost as much as Democrats......

True.  I'm really not of the opinion, though, that Obamacare is a Democratic invention.  I see it as an Obama invention that he's sort of half gotten support on from mainstream Democrats.

Obamacare is rather an ideological invention.  Anything based on practical business knowledge and examination of facts would be better.  There is no question that the normal committee in the House, committee in the Senate process, followed by votes of approval and sent to the POTUS for signoff, would have resulted in a superior result.

Obama chose not to do this due to an ideological Marxist and socialist prejudice, instead opted for a budget reconcilation process which allowed passage with 1/2+1 votes.  The existing legislation never went through any committee, in either House or Senate.

Thus we can say that "Obamacare isn't a product of the Democrats" at least in the normal legislative sense.

Oh yes; they didn't show the bill before the vote and they now say that writing that the states were responsible to create a market place was a typo.

[jaysabi]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

Hey, you didn't wish me a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

If the republicans can't shake the 0bama illegal shakedown on the US citizen I'll make sure to talk about that too... Just as much as liberals were up in arms when their president went to war in Libya WITHOUT approval from Congress, or let a US ambassador die, or when 0bama did not close gitmo for the past 6 years, or when he targeted the US free press with his shadowy foot soldiers, or when he used (still does) the IRS as a weapon against the US citizen...

I am sure you remember all those historical moments, and each time you where sadden by those events...

[jaysabi]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

Hey, you didn't wish me a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

If the republicans can't shake the 0bama illegal shakedown on the US citizen I'll make sure to talk about that too... Just as much as liberals were up in arms when their president went to war in Libya WITHOUT approval from Congress, or let a US ambassador die, or when 0bama did not close gitmo for the past 6 years, or when he targeted the US free press with his shadowy foot soldiers, or when he used (still does) the IRS as a weapon against the US citizen...

I am sure you remember all those historical moments, and each time you where sadden by those events...

I don't know if you're accusing me of being an Obama supporter. I'm very critical of Obama and his policies. He's as terrible a president to me as GW was (picking a "winner" is just too close to call). But I do believe in representing information more fairly than either republicans or democrats do, who only act to serve their own political power interests, which is why I call you out on certain representations you make. It's not in defense of Obama, but in an attempt to dispel republican talking points which aren't reflective of reality, but the fictions they peddle to empower themselves at the expense of the democrats.

Unrelated, why do you spell Obama as "0Bama"?

[Wilikon]

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no?

Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that  money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this:

When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare?

I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare?

Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? 

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House

Do democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?

Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare


[picture redacted]


Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

Hey, you didn't answer my question.   

Hey, you didn't wish me a Happy Thanksgiving!!! 

If the republicans can't shake the 0bama illegal shakedown on the US citizen I'll make sure to talk about that too... Just as much as liberals were up in arms when their president went to war in Libya WITHOUT approval from Congress, or let a US ambassador die, or when 0bama did not close gitmo for the past 6 years, or when he targeted the US free press with his shadowy foot soldiers, or when he used (still does) the IRS as a weapon against the US citizen...

I am sure you remember all those historical moments, and each time you where sadden by those events...

I don't know if you're accusing me of being an Obama supporter. I'm very critical of Obama and his policies. He's as terrible a president to me as GW was (picking a "winner" is just too close to call). But I do believe in representing information more fairly than either republicans or democrats do, who only act to serve their own political power interests, which is why I call you out on certain representations you make. It's not in defense of Obama, but in an attempt to dispel republican talking points which aren't reflective of reality, but the fictions they peddle to empower themselves at the expense of the democrats.

Unrelated, why do you spell Obama as "0Bama"?

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

[un-redacted image]

[jaysabi]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

[RodeoX]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

[Wilikon]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

Yes. 0bama. Not 0Bama.

Only 40 instances? I need to work harder... 

[Fatman3001]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

If you read his posts with a Daffy Duck/Nerd lisp, it all makes sense. Sort of...

[Wilikon]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

0bamacare is a disease for the majority of Americans. That is not nonsense. Even democrats agree with that statement. Obviously if are watching from abroad then 0bamacare will never have any impact on your life or loved ones.

[picolo]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

0bamacare is a disease for the majority of Americans. That is not nonsense. Even democrats agree with that statement. Obviously if are watching from abroad then 0bamacare will never have any impact on your life or loved ones.

Health costs are already too much in the USA, more administration costs and more tax payer money poured into health care will push costs even higher.

[Spendulus]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

I believe you, but anecdotal evidence is not statistics.

By contrast with your experience, my insurance rates have doubled, to over $22,000 per year for the family.  Never a signficant health issue, by the way.

[deluxeCITY]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

I believe you, but anecdotal evidence is not statistics.

By contrast with your experience, my insurance rates have doubled, to over $22,000 per year for the family.  Never a signficant health issue, by the way.

I would say that your experience is more the norm then the exception. How the ACA aka obama care is structured will force insurers to raise insurance premiums for people who have a low amount of risk in order to subsidize others who have much higher amounts of risk

[Spendulus]

Hey I just signed up again for the year. I switched to another plan this year and found better coverage for about $15 more than what I had last year. The website still has some issues. A few links I clicked on were dead or linked back to the same page. But it basically worked.

I believe you, but anecdotal evidence is not statistics.

By contrast with your experience, my insurance rates have doubled, to over $22,000 per year for the family.  Never a signficant health issue, by the way.

I would say that your experience is more the norm then the exception. How the ACA aka obama care is structured will force insurers to raise insurance premiums for people who have a low amount of risk in order to subsidize others who have much higher amounts of risk

Yes, I believe you are correct.   That is why (financially) Obamacare will fail.  It may be supportable through simply printing dollars and paying medical care with those. However, it would definitely be a third rate health system.

[jaysabi]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

Yes. 0bama. Not 0Bama.

Only 40 instances? I need to work harder... 

Ah I see! You got me on a technicality. That is a well-scored point, but my question remains. Is it supposed to be a slight?

[Spendulus]

Im thinking about writing a long and over-developed post about how retarded America and its fcked up politics, de-railed moneysystem, healthcare, medicine, how-to-war... and so on. But I realize I'm at a Bitcoin-Forum and I assume that if you found your way here your mind should be quite enlightened already.....


Let me tell you; If everyone push a % of the salary at the government and the government DONT WASTE IT AT SHIT there wont be a problem to have a working healthcare, education, w/e you want........

And see, that is the proof of why here in the USA, a scheme like Obamacare will never work.

See bolded above.

We know what happens in Washington DC (District of Criminals).

[Wilikon]

I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.

99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.

You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.

Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense.

Yes. 0bama. Not 0Bama.

Only 40 instances? I need to work harder...  

Ah I see! You got me on a technicality. That is a well-scored point, but my question remains. Is it supposed to be a slight?

I do not believe it was a well-scored point and I do not believe writing 0bama or Obama or obama or OBama makes any kind of difference.

Instead of linking an image like this:


... I just write 0bama. It is not something I invented either. Pretty old. Just as something like this:


Obviously the thread is about if 0bamacare is better than the invention of slice bread or an abomination. Some people think it is great, others keep looking into the abyss of the number zero and expect an explanation to why Wilikon writes 0bamacare with a zero... No one cares, but everyone, including the ones who hate my posts, gets it...

[jaysabi]

Im thinking about writing a long and over-developed post about how retarded America and its fcked up politics, de-railed moneysystem, healthcare, medicine, how-to-war... and so on. But I realize I'm at a Bitcoin-Forum and I assume that if you found your way here your mind should be quite enlightened already.....


Let me tell you; If everyone push a % of the salary at the government and the government DONT WASTE IT AT SHIT there wont be a problem to have a working healthcare, education, w/e you want........

And see, that is the proof of why here in the USA, a scheme like Obamacare will never work.

See bolded above.

We know what happens in Washington DC (District of Criminals).

I don't think the part you highlighted is an American problem so much as an everyone problem. Every group, individual, company, or other entity abuses the power they have to benefit one group over another. That, especially, is what governments do, and further, what people demand they do. Tyranny by the majority.

[jaysabi]

I do not believe writing 0bama or Obama or obama or OBama makes any kind of difference.

This is clearly not true. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't take the extra effort to intentionally misspell the name every time.

Obviously the thread is about if 0bamacare is better than the invention of slice bread or an abomination. Some people think it is great, others keep looking into the abyss of the number zero and expect an explanation to why Wilikon writes 0bamacare with a zero... No one cares, but everyone, including the ones who hate my posts, gets it...

I care. I was wondering why you did it, as I've never seen it done before but it was obviously intentional. While I had my theory about it, I didn't necessarily assume to know your motivation for doing it, which is why I asked. In any event, I have my answer now. I wasn't asking to ridicule you or debate the merits of it, just to understand.

[Wilikon]

I do not believe writing 0bama or Obama or obama or OBama makes any kind of difference.

This is clearly not true. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't take the extra effort to intentionally misspell the name every time.

Obviously the thread is about if 0bamacare is better than the invention of slice bread or an abomination. Some people think it is great, others keep looking into the abyss of the number zero and expect an explanation to why Wilikon writes 0bamacare with a zero... No one cares, but everyone, including the ones who hate my posts, gets it...

I care. I was wondering why you did it, as I've never seen it done before but it was obviously intentional. While I had my theory about it, I didn't necessarily assume to know your motivation for doing it, which is why I asked. In any event, I have my answer now. I wasn't asking to ridicule you or debate the merits of it, just to understand.

Hm. I really did not believe you were trying to ridicule Wilikon as he is but a puppet purely created to have a 'good' time on the bitcointalk forum. My explanation was clear I thought. Yes I am not a fan of obama and to let anyone knows it I write 0bama. There is not much to it really.


As this is not my thread I would hate to be impolite and derail it more with a back and forth here. But you are welcome to move to any of my threads as I am not afraid to derail them myself No need for private messages as I do not care for them.

Now... Back to that evil 0bamacare shall we  

[Spendulus]

Im thinking about writing a long and over-developed post about how retarded America and its fcked up politics, de-railed moneysystem, healthcare, medicine, how-to-war... and so on. But I realize I'm at a Bitcoin-Forum and I assume that if you found your way here your mind should be quite enlightened already.....


Let me tell you; If everyone push a % of the salary at the government and the government DONT WASTE IT AT SHIT there wont be a problem to have a working healthcare, education, w/e you want........

And see, that is the proof of why here in the USA, a scheme like Obamacare will never work.

See bolded above.

We know what happens in Washington DC (District of Criminals).

I don't think the part you highlighted is an American problem so much as an everyone problem. Every group, individual, company, or other entity abuses the power they have to benefit one group over another. That, especially, is what governments do, and further, what people demand they do. Tyranny by the majority.

True to a degree.   Many nations in which socialized medicine work are more comparable to one of the States of the US, than the nation.  It's much easier for the people to keep government straight even in a large state like Texas, than to do so in DC.  DC is totally out of control, so whatever your project, even if it be a health care plan, no sane person would give them control of it.

[oprahwindfury]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

[Spendulus]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

This deserves some sort of award.  Not sure what, though.

"Best Leftist Fantasy of Post-Gruber-Medical-Apocalpse?"

[cryptocoiner]

nothing worng...

[Wilikon]

nothing worng...

Let me quote this typo before it gets changed...

Gruber dismissed the controversy as arising from a “typo” in the law and his own statement as a “speako.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/the-worst-of-jonathan-gruber/

[Wilikon]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

Basically EVERYONE who's against 0bamacare is making $200 000 or more every year? I did not know I was making so much money with my bitcoins 

If you are typing this from any country but the US or being a paid assistant of the gruber propaganda team then I understand your position.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[Kluge]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

Fwiw, surtax is .9%, not .009% (3.8% on investment income). The CBO estimates ~2% of the pool of uninsured Americans will be penalized by the individual mandate requirements, roughly half of uninsured Americans. Oddly enough, this indicates almost a decrease in non-Medicaid-insured Americans from 2007 census data, where uninsured Americans are mostly (~60%) made up of people who are making under $50k/yr and very likely exempt from the ACA's individual mandate. This'd suggest to me that the CBO is estimating the ACA will have little impact on healthcare coverage in the US, roughly in line with 2007 levels. The CBO estimates $9B in receivables (still no word on viable plans to collect since few subject to the individual mandate will have a federal tax refund) from the individual mandate, while the Joint Commission on Taxation estimates ~$45B in additional revenues from ACA taxes. The CBO suggests it's unfunded, with the law creating an additional ~$100B/yr in unfunded federal liabilities from baseline (presumably from Medicaid expansion).

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. Since a free market approach to healthcare is outside the realm of political possibility in the US (and mixed [crony capitalist] systems are terrible everywhere, all the time), I'd be willing to support measures to enact single-payer systems with full, hassle-free national coverage, which the CBO projected in the 90's as being nearly cost-neutral or even cost-negative (compared to current system) due to the greatly reduced administrative costs. Politicians always seem to half-ass things in the US; "compromise."

[jaysabi]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

I understand how it works, I don't make more than $200,000 a years, and I'm still opposed to it. What the program "aims to do" and what it actually does are not the same. Government has a long-running problem with unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the two parties act out of political necessity now, not with any design on what is best for the country. Democrats needed a major policy accomplishment, so this was rushed and rammed through. The vast majority of the Congress didn't read the bill, let alone understand it or be able to foresee the unintended consequences the bill would create. Republicans aren't opposing out of a sense of what is good for the country either. They're opposition is rooted in denying Democrats a major policy win.

My opposition to the bill is on principle. You can't be forced to buy something you don't want to buy, and someone else's problems cannot be made to be your own by government. Everyone is born free and equal, and as a free and equal person to everyone, you cannot be forced an obligation to them unwillingly, which is what socialized medicine is at its base. Your unwillingness to help others who are less fortunate makes you a bad person, but you're free to be a bad person because you're free.

[Spendulus]

......

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....

I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate.

For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes.

My insurance costs almost tripled.

The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement.

The effects are certainly not almost non existent.

[Wilikon]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

I understand how it works, I don't make more than $200,000 a years, and I'm still opposed to it. What the program "aims to do" and what it actually does are not the same. Government has a long-running problem with unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the two parties act out of political necessity now, not with any design on what is best for the country. Democrats needed a major policy accomplishment, so this was rushed and rammed through. The vast majority of the Congress didn't read the bill, let alone understand it or be able to foresee the unintended consequences the bill would create. Republicans aren't opposing out of a sense of what is good for the country either. They're opposition is rooted in denying Democrats a major policy win.

My opposition to the bill is on principle. You can't be forced to buy something you don't want to buy, and someone else's problems cannot be made to be your own by government. Everyone is born free and equal, and as a free and equal person to everyone, you cannot be forced an obligation to them unwillingly, which is what socialized medicine is at its base. Your unwillingness to help others who are less fortunate makes you a bad person, but you're free to be a bad person because you're free.

Yep!

[Kluge]

......

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....

I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate.

For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes.

My insurance costs almost tripled.

The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement.

The effects are certainly not almost non existent.

I didn't think of that. I'd guess your employer significantly subsidized healthcare costs where wages (especially for single adults) typically exceed Medicaid income tests and now face higher costs because they have to go from their own insurance pool of productive, able-bodied people to a massive pool of all sorts of people. I thought the practice of companies paying for insurance'd pretty much died off outside, say, $100k+/yr jobs where the tax benefits of taking health care over increased pay gets pretty extreme.

The IRS has no effective way of enforcing the individual mandate. They're claiming they'll withhold federal tax refund checks, but a household failing the Medicaid income tests are unlikely to be receiving a tax refund (though this could be extremely different state-by-state, and some states do asset tests).

[Spendulus]

......

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....

I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate.

For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes.

My insurance costs almost tripled.

The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement.

The effects are certainly not almost non existent.

I didn't think of that. I'd guess your employer significantly subsidized healthcare costs where wages (especially for single adults) typically exceed Medicaid income tests and now face higher costs because they have to go from their own insurance pool of productive, able-bodied people to a massive pool of all sorts of people. I thought the practice of companies paying for insurance'd pretty much died off outside, say, $100k+/yr jobs where the tax benefits of taking health care over increased pay gets pretty extreme.

The IRS has no effective way of enforcing the individual mandate. They're claiming they'll withhold federal tax refund checks, but a household failing the Medicaid income tests are unlikely to be receiving a tax refund (though this could be extremely different state-by-state, and some states do asset tests).

A.  The Employer Mandate begs to differ with you.

B.  The IRS certainly can and will enforce the individual mandate.  Ever heard of the Earned Income Credit?  They can withhold it in whole or part.

[jaysabi]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

I understand how it works, I don't make more than $200,000 a years, and I'm still opposed to it. What the program "aims to do" and what it actually does are not the same. Government has a long-running problem with unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the two parties act out of political necessity now, not with any design on what is best for the country. Democrats needed a major policy accomplishment, so this was rushed and rammed through. The vast majority of the Congress didn't read the bill, let alone understand it or be able to foresee the unintended consequences the bill would create. Republicans aren't opposing out of a sense of what is good for the country either. They're opposition is rooted in denying Democrats a major policy win.

My opposition to the bill is on principle. You can't be forced to buy something you don't want to buy, and someone else's problems cannot be made to be your own by government. Everyone is born free and equal, and as a free and equal person to everyone, you cannot be forced an obligation to them unwillingly, which is what socialized medicine is at its base. Your unwillingness to help others who are less fortunate makes you a bad person, but you're free to be a bad person because you're free.

Yep!

Stop the presses! We just agreed on something Wilikon.

[bf4btc]

......

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....

I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate.

For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes.

My insurance costs almost tripled.

The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement.

The effects are certainly not almost non existent.

I didn't think of that. I'd guess your employer significantly subsidized healthcare costs where wages (especially for single adults) typically exceed Medicaid income tests and now face higher costs because they have to go from their own insurance pool of productive, able-bodied people to a massive pool of all sorts of people. I thought the practice of companies paying for insurance'd pretty much died off outside, say, $100k+/yr jobs where the tax benefits of taking health care over increased pay gets pretty extreme.

The IRS has no effective way of enforcing the individual mandate. They're claiming they'll withhold federal tax refund checks, but a household failing the Medicaid income tests are unlikely to be receiving a tax refund (though this could be extremely different state-by-state, and some states do asset tests).

The IRS/government has actually explicitly said they will not enforce the individual mandate. The whole concept of Obama care is a joke, it is just a ploy to get more people on a new entitlement program so more people will vote democrat

[Spendulus]

......

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....

I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate.

For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes.

My insurance costs almost tripled.

The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement.

The effects are certainly not almost non existent.

I didn't think of that. I'd guess your employer significantly subsidized healthcare costs where wages (especially for single adults) typically exceed Medicaid income tests and now face higher costs because they have to go from their own insurance pool of productive, able-bodied people to a massive pool of all sorts of people. I thought the practice of companies paying for insurance'd pretty much died off outside, say, $100k+/yr jobs where the tax benefits of taking health care over increased pay gets pretty extreme.

The IRS has no effective way of enforcing the individual mandate. They're claiming they'll withhold federal tax refund checks, but a household failing the Medicaid income tests are unlikely to be receiving a tax refund (though this could be extremely different state-by-state, and some states do asset tests).

The IRS/government has actually explicitly said they will not enforce the individual mandate. The whole concept of Obama care is a joke, it is just a ploy to get more people on a new entitlement program so more people will vote democrat

I've read about this and find the arguments lacking or outright false.  For example, the argument that for non payment of the penalty "the IRS cannot criminally prosecute  you."

But almost all IRS prosecutions are civil, under administrative and  regulatory law.  They are not criminal prosecutions - those are reserved for such as fraud.

So the IRS simply adds the amount not paid for the penalty to the tax liability, and assesses penalties and interest to that.  The sum doubles or triples each year from those.

And your argument about "not able to collect the penalty because they don't get a tax refund" is false, also.  Look at the nature of the "Earned income credit."  Lots of people get paid money when their return is processed and it's not a "tax refund."

The IRS certainly does have effective ways of enforcing the individual mandate, and it certainly will do it.

[jaysabi]

......

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....

I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate.

For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes.

My insurance costs almost tripled.

The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement.

The effects are certainly not almost non existent.

I didn't think of that. I'd guess your employer significantly subsidized healthcare costs where wages (especially for single adults) typically exceed Medicaid income tests and now face higher costs because they have to go from their own insurance pool of productive, able-bodied people to a massive pool of all sorts of people. I thought the practice of companies paying for insurance'd pretty much died off outside, say, $100k+/yr jobs where the tax benefits of taking health care over increased pay gets pretty extreme.

The IRS has no effective way of enforcing the individual mandate. They're claiming they'll withhold federal tax refund checks, but a household failing the Medicaid income tests are unlikely to be receiving a tax refund (though this could be extremely different state-by-state, and some states do asset tests).

The IRS/government has actually explicitly said they will not enforce the individual mandate. The whole concept of Obama care is a joke, it is just a ploy to get more people on a new entitlement program so more people will vote democrat

Do you have a source for this claim? Because I've not heard it, I find it hard to believe, and it undercuts the entire system if there's no penalty for not joining.

Spendulus is right about enforcing the mandate. It's not a criminal action, it's administrative. There are fees and interest, which if you don't pay may eventually wind up with a criminal complaint, but the IRS is an administrative agency.

[sickhouse]

The main problem is about the homeless aint it? They can't pay for obamacare and can get punished for it? Or have I missunderstood something?

[Wilikon]

The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works.  The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.

I understand how it works, I don't make more than $200,000 a years, and I'm still opposed to it. What the program "aims to do" and what it actually does are not the same. Government has a long-running problem with unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the two parties act out of political necessity now, not with any design on what is best for the country. Democrats needed a major policy accomplishment, so this was rushed and rammed through. The vast majority of the Congress didn't read the bill, let alone understand it or be able to foresee the unintended consequences the bill would create. Republicans aren't opposing out of a sense of what is good for the country either. They're opposition is rooted in denying Democrats a major policy win.

My opposition to the bill is on principle. You can't be forced to buy something you don't want to buy, and someone else's problems cannot be made to be your own by government. Everyone is born free and equal, and as a free and equal person to everyone, you cannot be forced an obligation to them unwillingly, which is what socialized medicine is at its base. Your unwillingness to help others who are less fortunate makes you a bad person, but you're free to be a bad person because you're free.

Yep!

Stop the presses! We just agreed on something Wilikon.

I don't really remember who's who on the forum unless they have a very obnoxious avatar or obnoxious giant flashy signature with neon lights around. I try to do my best to comment and reply to the core of what I read every time, as I do not prejudge people on forum.

 

 

[Spendulus]

......

I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....

I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate.

For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes.

My insurance costs almost tripled.

The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement.

The effects are certainly not almost non existent.

I didn't think of that. I'd guess your employer significantly subsidized healthcare costs where wages (especially for single adults) typically exceed Medicaid income tests and now face higher costs because they have to go from their own insurance pool of productive, able-bodied people to a massive pool of all sorts of people. I thought the practice of companies paying for insurance'd pretty much died off outside, say, $100k+/yr jobs where the tax benefits of taking health care over increased pay gets pretty extreme.

The IRS has no effective way of enforcing the individual mandate. They're claiming they'll withhold federal tax refund checks, but a household failing the Medicaid income tests are unlikely to be receiving a tax refund (though this could be extremely different state-by-state, and some states do asset tests).

The IRS/government has actually explicitly said they will not enforce the individual mandate. The whole concept of Obama care is a joke, it is just a ploy to get more people on a new entitlement program so more people will vote democrat

Do you have a source for this claim? Because I've not heard it, I find it hard to believe, and it undercuts the entire system if there's no penalty for not joining.

Spendulus is right about enforcing the mandate. It's not a criminal action, it's administrative. There are fees and interest, which if you don't pay may eventually wind up with a criminal complaint, but the IRS is an administrative agency.

Actually, several assertions he made are what might be dubbed "well known and well propagated total falsehoods".  Easy to find them on google and so forth.  But a simple examination of them shows they are false. 

I have to suspect it's part of making Obamacare seem more palatable or less threatening than it actually is.  Because they most certainly will come after the 20-40 year old singles market, and with a vengence.

[BitMos]

Frankly if it was to be redone, it would be first fix the VA, meaning using more systemic and serious (modern) tools to approach the question in a more strategic way of thinking and then working roll out main stream... sound more professional to me, not that the private sector isn't able to make more than shoes, or even provide the most perfect health maximizing return for everyone, it's just that if the solution developed for the VA is better than all the others why not, which would make it a free choice, and the natural death of an industry... And it's not like if the VA didn't need fixing, which would solve the health part of it, at least. Obamacare is actually at least a case study of the risks of the concept of public-private partnership. why not try a full true (deep) state side solution to a real problem like health issue in veteran affairs? Market have agreed to the collectivization of defense (offense  ), if collectivized health solutions are provably better, who could resists? Anyone can marketing what ever a shoe, but if it hurts, it hurts...

[Spendulus]

Frankly if it was to be redone, it would be first fix the VA, meaning using more systemic and serious (modern) tools to approach the question in a more strategic way of thinking and then working roll out main stream... sound more professional to me, not that the private sector isn't able to make more than shoes, or even provide the most perfect health maximizing return for everyone, it's just that if the solution developed for the VA is better than all the others why not, which would make it a free choice, and the natural death of an industry... And it's not like if the VA didn't need fixing, which would solve the health part of it, at least. Obamacare is actually at least a case study of the risks of the concept of public-private partnership. why not try a full true (deep) state side solution to a real problem like health issue in veteran affairs? Market have agreed to the collectivization of defense (offense  ), if collectivized health solutions are provably better, who could resists? Anyone can marketing what ever a shoe, but if it hurts, it hurts...

Well lets just "improve health care" even more.  We'll have the state pay for health care, and also intense promotion and advertising on how great health care is.  Then we'll have the state shut up anyone who says anything to the contrary.

That oughta work.