[paraclete]

Typical lefty nonsense . It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others.They should pay a price for that inequity

What is nonsense, Tom, is your inability to see that the problem of people being uninsurable and uninsured had to be solved because the market mechanism had failed. Obviously safety nets hadn't solved the problem of the behaviour of the insurers and the very real problem in hard economic times of what happens when you lose employer based health care. It is in the public interest and the public good to solve this problem. Health care is not a problem only your nation faces, it is a problem all nations face. What makes your case unique is the redicuously high cost base and the unwillingness of the government to deal effectively with the market

[talaniman]

Oh come on Tom, between companies that want to make money, and insurance companies that want to make money, real people are just a mean to an end. A necessary business expense. If he can cut your hours, cut your wages, or cut your benefits to swell his profit he will, and has done it. And that goes for that pension if you have one.

So think hard before you keep denying other what you yourself have worked and sacrificed for because as surely as they impoverish your fellows and shred the safety net, what the hell makes you think it won't be you next? Or us?

[paraclete]

Tal Tom is the perfect ostrich, he has his head in the republican sand box, a place where no one ever gets sick, everyone has a job provided by the job creators and money grows on trees

Thus he believes he needs to make no contribution from his coffers towards the general upkeep of this constitutional republican utopia. In Tom's world the poor live somewhere offshore and can be ignored or exploited

[Tuttyd]

Sometimes better known as, "I'm all right Jack so why aren't you?"

[Tuttyd]

"typical lefty nonsense. It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others. They should be made to pay for the inequality."

Tom, this is pathetic. Of course they should.

You just can't get over this idea that equity of health care is somehow about treating people who are unequal differently. In this respect unequal in terms of the likelihood of suffering a chronic illness.

[paraclete]

Yes Tutt Tom doesn't understand the all men are equal clause he thinks they were all created equal in health and opportunity and it is their fault if they are sick or in disadvantaged circumstance

[tomder55]

The truth is that with the exception of the very few who are born with serious health conditions,very few people have preexisting conditions prior to age 22-26 that would disqualify them from an individual health policy. What you mean is that poor is a medical condition and being self sufficient and healthy is the result of "luck " instead of hard work . Even the 1st Lady doesn't buy into your pablum .She believes that lifestyle is a much bigger factor ;and she's right .But in Gruber's world ,those who take the steps to stay healthy and takes personal responsibility seriously, as the 1st Lady suggests ,get penalized for their efforts in paying for those who don't .Sorta a reverse social darwinism . What this is ,is the progressives shoving their idea of fairness down everyone's throat .

[speechlesstx]

There is nothing fair in redistribution of "wealth." Dems are just pirates plundering the high seas of hard earned success.

[Tuttyd]

Interesting Tom. And what type of Social Darwinism do you buy into? Obviously not the reverse type.

[talaniman]

There is nothing fair in redistribution of "wealth." Dems are just pirates plundering the high seas of hard earned success.

But its okay to redistribute the wealth to the rich guys and let them plunder the high seas and call it EARNED? I call it corporate welfare.

[speechlesstx]

You say that as if I'm a fan of corporate welfare.

Hint: this is where you channel Emily Litella.

[speechlesstx]

So, about all those healthy, young adults needed to prop up Obamacare...

CNN analysis: No Obamacare subsidy for some low-income Americans

Washington (CNN) -- One of the basic tenets of Obamacare is that the government will help lower-income Americans -- anyone making less than about $45,900 a year -- pay for the health insurance everyone is now mandated to have.

But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected. Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.

That doesn't change the fact that in Chicago, a 27-year old will receive no subsidy to help offset premiums of more than $165 a month if he makes more than $27,400 a year.

In Portland, Oregon, subsidies for individuals making just $28,725 a year phase out for those younger than 35 years old.

The subsidies situation is adding another layer of complications and calculations to the already-complex picture of Obamacare.

At least the media is finally getting around to fact checking the regime. So how many do you suppose will opt to pay for both the premiums and their out-of-pockets and deductibles and how many will pay the fine and not worry about it until they need insurance?

[talaniman]

Those figures are based on filings of people who have no other deductions, primarily short form filers/earners.

For example, a mortgage deduction greatly lowers earnings that are taxable. As does child support, or anything that makes filing a long form possible, no matter the age. Older people tend to have more deductions, but working youngsters may not know what they can deduct.

I got that from the website. Anecdotes don't give the whole individual story. Factual data in individual cases is more important than just the emotional reaction. Most 27 year old I know have dependents and student payments, but some don't.

[speechlesstx]

I see. Alrighty then.

[smearcase]

Sounds like young folks need to get into some serious debt so they can afford to buy health insurance. Believe it or not, I want healthcare for every citizen to work, but this ACA is so full of holes mainly because no one reviewed it adequately before it was passed. Fail to plan, plan to fail.
Is the real reason the computer programmers are having so much difficulty the fact that there are too many 2+2 =5 flaws in the logic of the law? Maybe more than even Michelle's college friend can handle.

[paraclete]

Is the real reason the computer programmers are having so much difficulty the fact that there are too many 2+2 =5 flaws in the logic of the law? Maybe more than even Michelle's college friend can handle.

No it's because they decided to built it from scratch, the database needed is enormous, they have to link to other data and transfer data to insurers, the government and so forth, as well as process payments, bill participants. Complexity creates problems in software

[speechlesstx]

Complexity creates problems in software

But it creates multimillion dollar no-bid contracts for your friends.

P.S. Complexity in bills no one read also creates far more losers than they want you to believe. Another slam from Zero's hometown paper...

If President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders think the outcry against Obamacare is fierce now, watch if millions more Americans get blindsided with the news that they'll be forced into these dysfunctional government online marketplaces. Some will face higher premiums or higher deductibles, and they'll be required to share private medical and financial information on a website with a questionable security firewall, opening them to fraudsters, hackers and cyberchaos.

The full brunt of Obamacare's impact on Americans is still gathering. Every law creates winners and losers, but with this law so far, the losers are piling up:

• Millions of Americans have seen their individual coverage canceled and are scrambling to find new policies. Many are learning that their new coverage will probably cost more via higher premiums and deductibles … if they can break through the error messages to the HealthCare.gov website. The president's tepid "fix" last week would allow (but not require) insurers to renew old individual policies for a year, if state regulators are on board with that. On Friday, Illinois officials announced they would allow this temporary remedy. Now we'll see how Illinois insurers respond. Whatever happens, this move is only a delay. A complete overhaul of the federal law is still urgently needed.

• People who gain coverage through smaller employers are at risk of getting cancellation notices next year. Here's why: Many businesses with fewer than 50 employees buy coverage in the small-group market. These plans can temporarily keep offering coverage that didn't meet expensive Obamacare requirements. When that ends next year, though, many employers may cancel policies because Obamacare coverage will likely boost costs.

• Hospitals are bracing for financial turbulence as out-of-pocket deductibles climb and people find themselves liable for more of their medical bills before insurance kicks in, The Tribune's Peter Frost reports.

In the past, hospitals could count on insurers to pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of services, leaving the rest to patients. For patients with high-deductible plans, however, the insurer's share drops to as low as 60 percent, with consumers on the hook for the balance. And if patients can't pay? Hospitals can write it off as bad debt or, in some cases, charity care. But many hospitals are already operating on thin margins. Add them to the list of potential Obamacare losers in waiting.

Tens of millions of people who have coverage through large American companies aren't losers … yet. The administration granted those businesses a one-year reprieve from the Obamacare mandate to provide coverage or pay penalties. That ends for 2015, and employers are already calculating what to do. Some may cut jobs, or employees' hours, to avoid offering costly insurance coverage. Other companies may dump everyone into the federal exchanges and pay penalties that are almost certain to be less than what coverage would cost.

[cdad]

"For example, a mortgage deduction greatly lowers earnings that are taxable. As does child support, or anything that makes filing a long form possible, no matter the age. Older people tend to have more deductions, but working youngsters may not know what they can deduct."


Tal. You are wrong. Child support IS NOT deductable. Those paying it stand to suffer the most under obamacare. They will have their income at the highest levels while in fact thier income may be at the lowest levels even below poverty. No help in site. Please get the facts straight.

[paraclete]

The day is coming that to fix the mess the government will need to assume the central role

[cdad]

If your talking about head of household. That is exactly what they are trying to accomplish.