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
6 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

Bigfoot

But hey. Karma right?

Tiredofit? What would you call coming into a foreign land and taking said land from the people living on it?

That was theft wasn't it?

This country was born out of an act of theft.

From whence you came so thou shalt return!

Posted 793 days ago.

Bigfoot

It sure is a lot worse than saying socialism isn't evil. Completely ignoring that we are allied with countries that are socialistic in nature.

Correction.

Posted 793 days ago.

Bigfoot

Tell me something. Those who fought for this country? Those who fought and died for the freedom we enjoy? You say that Kendall sullies their sacrifice?

What about those who wish to limit the freedom in this country that others are trying to attain for themselves?

There's a whole bunch of people in this country who act as if this country is theirs and theirs alone...everyone else unlike them is an imposter...even though most of them were born and raised American citizens.

Just for being different. Have no religion? Oh! You're evil! Love someone of the same sex? You're plotting to destroy this country...and you're evil.

Can you guess which voting block those limiters of freedom come from?

If that aint taking a huge dump on the sacrifices those who fought and died for ALL OF US...then I don't know what is.

It sure is a lot worse than calling socialism evil. Completely ignoring that we are allied with countries that are socialistic in nature.

Posted 793 days ago.

Kendall78

Which came first? The dependents or the dependency?

What should have the govt done back during the Great Depression? Let those that couldn't survive die off? Or perhaps instead of a little controlled socialism, perhaps a little anarchy would have been better for those who had no where to go?

There is nothing evil in socialism, no more than there is righteous in republicanism.

Posted 793 days ago.

Kendall78

I don't know about that, some socialistic type programs got started quickly and we wouldn't know what to do without them today.

Posted 796 days ago.

MVandelay

There is just so much negative buzz about Obamacare, it's hard to find the positive stories. Here is a happy look at how the ACA is affecting REAL people who REALLY need it: ***********uwmedicinepulse****/the-affordable-care-act/. Nothing ever comes easily- just give it some time!

Posted 796 days ago.

Kendall78

Yeah, from what it sounds like...they won't be getting close to those numbers anytime soon. Not unless the penalties start encouraging more uninsured people to join.

Posted 796 days ago.

luvthesouth

Kendall78, if the question you posted was not person sensitive then i would like to post what i found...all subject to correction of course. the KFF report found that 40% of the 18-34 age group and 37% of the 35-54 age group would need to participate according to CBO figures as costs for the A.C.A. Naturally that assumes that the other age groups attain their percentage requirement and all pay their preiums as required. the above information was taken from a Dec. 2013 KFF report.

Posted 796 days ago.

Kendall78

At what percentage must the previously uninsured be for Obamacare to be feasible financially?

I assume the uninsured they are looking for are mostly working class people under the age of 40.

Posted 799 days ago.

luvthesouth

fred...with the march 31st deadline approaching, it would not be surprising to see activity increase at the ACA website. looking without buying is still just looking. i am not certain that your claim of what each of the (questionable) 5 million discovered could be construed as accurate. even Judge Judy does not affirm speculation or hearsay. neither do i. lets chat when they sign-up and pay their premiums....i wonder if they happened to also reasearch the projection of the increase in premiums as a result of marketplace fluctuations and the costs of the A.C.A. requirements themselves.

Posted 801 days ago.

exofDevola

You never discuss anything r1k, never.

Posted 801 days ago.

exofDevola

This is not discussion, it's ridiculous. Why can people get away with mentioning different articles and pass it off as meaningful, it's not. I can quote the cat ad and the hat, cause that what Ted Cruz did , but do I somehow rationalize it has to do with the topic Obama care? It doesn't, you're both right what the diff and ask not Ss dd

Posted 801 days ago.

exofDevola

oMg this forum is a joke, there is no discussion whatsoever, same old crap different day!

Posted 802 days ago.

luvthesouth

BobBarker: you posted..."Another idiotic opinion from another rightwing whacko nutjob." based on a report by "Unite Here": "A national union that represents 300,000 low-wage hospitality workers charges in a new report that Obamacare will slam wages, cut hours, limit access to health insurance and worsen the very “income equality” President Obama says he is campaigning to fix. “Only in Washington could asking the bottom of the middle class to finance health care for the poorest families be seen as reducing inequality,” said the report from Unite Here. “Without smart fixes, the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage,” said the report, titled, “The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse.” your own personal prejudice and whacko is shining through.

Posted 802 days ago.

luvthesouth

them the full credit they deserve and stop blaming the wrong party. maybe you should be in conversation with him on this topic. he seems to have the answer....blame the republicans. there is your solution. you two hash it out for a bit....unless that is your blame game as well.

Posted 805 days ago.

luvthesouth

asknot, you and others premiums are predicted to increase even with the law. healthcare costs money. there is no way around that. people risk their homes to foreclosure to purchase many petty things much less for continuing life. if you have dug yourself a large enough hole finacially, then bancruptcy is your saving grace. there is no way individuals as a collective can provide so that no one ever finds themselves in any hardship. even with todays social programs...all i ever hear is it is never enough. insurance provides much toward covering what one otherwise could not. to simply sit back and demand more for less legislatively is the same as enacting law lowering your wage because others may demand more for less from your efforts. everybody wants more...not neccessarily needs more. the problem arises when it comes to who provides the "more". much to the chagrin of BobBarker...the democrats took a full 2+ year hiatis to craft this boondoggle. the least we can do is give the

Posted 805 days ago.

luvthesouth

still do. DNA and hereditary factors can not be legislated away so far....i think that in the end affordability may be the dream but false success for many may be the reality. glass half-full overlooks failure. glass half-empty acknowledges failure. acceptance of there is nothing better is not a good enough reason to champion a law that will not work as how it was sold but just maybe as it was intended. forgot to say good morning...you too fred.

Posted 805 days ago.

luvthesouth

asknot, perhaps you may consider applying for the postion of premium collector or healthcare law/tax enforcer. you seem to ignore the fact that if you desire to fix a problem, you must first identify the problem. to sit back and simply stare at the glittering goodies that appeal to you, you should instead fix that which steals its shimmer. those that were not paying before will not pay now. everyone else from taxpayers, the insured, insurance companies, charities and family. sounds a bit like who paid before Obama "fixed" the healthcare system. irresponsible poeple can't be made responsible by law. the lawful are always mistreated by the unlawful. otherwise we would not need laws with penalties but only guidelines and helpful hints in life. the healhcare system was working very well for many years for a heck of alot of people. the choices were there for those to purchase insurance. many chose not too. the choices for healthy living was there but many chose not too...and stil

Posted 805 days ago.

luvthesouth

should "real" waste be eliminated, then i will support that. equal coverage for women is really a misnomer in that all it does is offer free (at others expense rather than recipient) medical care and perks that are gender specific. there is nothing equal in that. since you have me over a barrel with older folks and the donut hole...i have to support that aspect. fair enough? speaking of donuts.....a dozen Krispy Kreme would be banging right now.

Posted 806 days ago.

luvthesouth

fred, you made a mistake...you should have posted "the low-information supporters". it seems that the trivalities that you so easily cast aside seem to be important enough for the President on down to claim their relative importance at the success of the "tax" program. mostly we are all affected by the healthcare(tax) law. no one other than those given certain exemptions and enough tax-credits are immune from the nasties of this healthcare (tax) law. the pre-existing condition requirement does not contain enough safe-guards against undue burden to the insurance companies, federal and state governments as well as every other individual policyholder. the term children is in the law is as misleading as the description and passage of the law itself. why not just call them career students or no-load adults when it comes to covering adults from age 18-26. that is stupid. let them be required to do what every other adult has to do as required by the law. i will say that s

Posted 806 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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