Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
14 days ago.
by slinky
Valveguy
#1

Obamacare is not "FREE" health care

People have finally realized that the word “free” is nowhere to be found in Obamacare’s “ Affordable Health Care Act”. Coverage under President Barack Obama's health care law won't be cheap. A study released Thursday by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation found that government tax credits would lower the sticker price on a benchmark "silver" policy to a little over $190 a month for single people making about $29,000, regardless of their age. For uninsured people who are paying nothing today, this is still a big cost that they're expected to fit into their budgets.

 
 

Member Comments

BeRight

So liars and cheaters were able to sign up?

Well the gov't met their magic number so who cares?

It is only taxpayer money.

Posted 119 days ago.

BeRight

About 423,000 people in the 37 states that use the federal marketplace lost their 2015 coverage by June 30 because they had not provided sufficient documentation of their citizenship or immigration status, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. And for about 967,000 households in those states, their premium subsidies — and for some, a separate category of subsidies that helps cover their co-payments and deductibles — were recalculated because of “income inconsistencies.” So for many who lost coverage this spring, the problems began when the marketplace could not verify the annual income they listed on their application, or their citizenship status.

Posted 119 days ago.

absolem

OWO...so as those unsustainable costs continue to rise...whom exactly witl be paying for those increases? the pundits had mathemeticians crunching the numbers on the ACA early on and found that the behemouth program would be destined to crumble under is own weight. Stevie Wonder called it and iunfortunately.....Obama wasn't listening.

Posted 160 days ago.

absolem

pool that includes all enrollees across their small group plans in the state.

Currently these provisions affect businesses that have 50 or fewer workers. But next year the provisions will kick in for businesses that have 51-100 workers. The change in the definition of a small group would differ from the employer mandate, which calls on companies with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance for their workers.

the affordable care act is the gift that keeps right on giving...or taking as you will. the burdens will increase as they rightly should. as the weight becomes too heavy for the electorate, they will have the politicians either find an "assisting" revenue source or simply borrow to cover the shortfalls or even the entire cost. buying votes or simply citizen-inspired and represented theivery.

Posted 161 days ago.

absolem

as reported in motherjones:

The New York Times reports that insurers are asking for significant rate increases for 2016:

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota....The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.

from the washington examiner:

More small businesses will have to adopt Obamacare's insurance changes next year, which business groups say could result in higher premiums.

Obamacare required small-group healthcare markets to cover essential benefits similar to those in the individual market. Those include capping enrollees' out-of-pocket costs and not excluding people due to pre-existing conditions.

Insurers also have to set rates using a single risk

Posted 161 days ago.

BeRight

Source USA Today:

UAW has one of the best if not the best Health Care Plans (pre 2007 workers).

Those at GM have unlimited doctor’s office visits with $25 co-payments, $20 at Ford. Visits to urgent centers or emergency rooms carry co-pays of $50 and $100, respectively. Prescription drug co-pays are $6 for generics, $12 for brand names and $17 for erectile dysfunction drugs.

But, go figure, The UAW objects to paying the Obamacare “Cadillac Tax”.

The Unions were granted a multi-year reprieve exemption from Obamacare to begin with. So where would that Tax Revenue go?

The revenue from that tax will help pay for the subsidized but less-generous plans now covering millions of people who previously were uninsured.

Well they UAW got theirs.

Posted 167 days ago.

NasCarNut

"wealth redistribution"is one of the rights attempts to demonize !

you didn't get the whole sentence, makes a difference...

Posted 217 days ago.

absolem

OWO....what is "wealth distribution" and if it exists, in what form should it take to be fair and equitable?

Posted 217 days ago.

NasCarNut

ok then, healthcare program...smh

Posted 227 days ago.

BeRight

Nas, it is not a "program".

It is insurance.

Posted 227 days ago.

NasCarNut

how much more time, money, and energy will they waste to overturn a program for which they have nothing to replace it with??...

Posted 227 days ago.

NasCarNut

relax folks, they're not giving up yet...third times a charm ;)

Republicans in Congress are moving toward a plan to use a special budgetary process to repeal ObamaCare, after the Supreme Court ruled for a second time to uphold the controversial law.

Posted 227 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course I was being facetious. Politics should have nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions.

But it obviously does. This case follows the pattern of many others. Republican appointees vote the Republican Party line and Democratic appointees vote the Democratic Party line.

In case after case, the courts don’t decide on the basis of right and wrong. They decide on the basis of party affiliation. That makes them political tools, and their opinions should be judged in that light.

BTW: Scalia follows the party line as much as anybody. Judge his dissent accordingly

Posted 227 days ago.

BeRight

The financial news reports that the biggest winners in the SCOTUS decision are the hospitals.

They will make tons more money.

The biggest losers are the newly insured who think they will get care from a system that is already stretched.

Obamacare is not about health care, it is about insurance.

Posted 227 days ago.

absolem

the extra and unexpected word at the end was a tx-exempt freebie and not required to be reported as the value falls well below the 1/100 cent valuse of most printed coupons.

Posted 227 days ago.

absolem

harryanderson...good morning. just think...it all began as not being a tax....ohhh wait...it became a tax..and a tax with exemptions and exclusions along with a myriad of modifications that allow it to be the artists canavs in which to craft a masterpiece of legislation. choice.

Posted 227 days ago.

harryanderson

John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy have betrayed the Republican Party that gave them their jobs.

Now is the perfect opportunity for Republicans to ensure that future SCOTUS appointees remain loyal to the Party.

The House should immediately bring Articles of Impeachment against Roberts. Maybe enough Democratic senators, hoping for a replacement chosen by Obama, will join the Republican senators in removing him. Then, McConnell should refuse to vote on any replacement until a Republican president gets elected.

Even if Roberts isn’t removed, future Republican appointees will understand that they WILL PAY A HEAVY PRICE if they stray from the Party line.

We must stop this ACTIVIST, LAWLESS, OUT-OF-CONTROL Supreme Court.

Posted 227 days ago.

Kunectdots

I'm sure Obama still carries some residual love in his heart for Chief Justice Roberts for s-crewing up the delivery of his first presidential oath of office.

Posted 228 days ago.

NasCarNut

The rule of law is as follows: Congress enacts the laws and if the law gets challenged on constitutional principles and the SCOTUS agrees to consider the challenge, then they issue a majority decision affirming or denying constitutionality of the law. That's precisely what has happened. And that's precisely what is defined as the rule of law in our democracy. 

Posted 228 days ago.

absolem

So...???????

Posted 237 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or