640 Million

[Top Gun]

Rule #1 of complaining about grammar on the Internet: you'll inevitably ★■◆● up the sentences you use to do so.

UHM. you cannot make up a definition of a word just to suit your "theory" not matter how inept you are with English. the reason we have a dictionary it to educate stupid people. ya know they make an Ap for your Mobile phone. maybe you should download it

I can't even tell what you're referring to here, since it doesn't match what I said at all. And that second paragraph is a lost cause by any standard.

[Krom]

and my plan that will have a 30% premium increase ($160 a month) and and a $1500 Deductible increase starting next year, \


just found out yesterday. glad it's "affordable"

My insurance premiums went up 20% or more every year, much of it during the Bush presidency, so I doubt this has anything to do with ACA, just business as usual.

[callmeslick]

informative history:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... ollout-too


we've been through this before and came out just fine......

[woodchip]

and my plan that will have a 30% premium increase ($160 a month) and and a $1500 Deductible increase starting next year, \


just found out yesterday. glad it's "affordable"

My insurance premiums went up 20% or more every year, much of it during the Bush presidency, so I doubt this has anything to do with ACA, just business as usual.

You should of dumped the plan. My Blue Cross only went up maybe 20% in the last 5 years or more

[Tunnelcat]

You should of dumped the plan. My Blue Cross only went up maybe 20% in the last 5 years or more

And that's GOOD? Inflation hasn't been running that high. Something is seriously out of whack with our health care in the U.S.

By the way, I heard the real reason that the ACA website has been crashing. Not withstanding the sloppy code issue, it appears that when CGI designed for the traffic load, they used as a template, the traffic from the Medicare site they also designed. Now will someone tell me how a bunch of older, internet phobic seniors, who probably use the phone to do most of their business with Medicare, can possibly a good indicator of POTENTIAL internet traffic for the ACA's site? What a bunch of imbeciles! Just ask Canada. They finally ditched the company after CGI royally botched their diabetes sufferer medical registration website.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... hcare-gov/

[callmeslick]

geez, the basic issue was that they WAY underestimated traffic, which, in a certain sense is a positive for the ACA long-term. The whole thing sort of rests on lots of people signing up, and it appears that is exactly the intention of the populace. Once again, though, I will state that I don't think the ACA offers enough by way of long-term cost restraint, as it still depends on Corporate Insurers and pay for service. Within a few years, and it might be far sooner than later, a critical mass of voters will come to accept that Single-Payer, like the rest of the civilized world uses, is the most efficient way to keep costs under control.

[Tunnelcat]

With half the country being vapid anti-anything that even smells of socialism, it'll be a very cold day in hell before we ever get single payer, enlightened or not. I think you're going to have to see large masses of people being denied access any kind of healthcare, just because they can't afford it. THEN single payer might have a chance.

[Will Robinson]

With half the country being vapid anti-anything that even smells of socialism, it'll be a very cold day in hell before we ever get single payer, enlightened or not. I think you're going to have to see large masses of people being denied access any kind of healthcare, just because they can't afford it. THEN single payer might have a chance.

You think that isn't in their plan?!?

[Tunnelcat]

I sure hope so. Our present system is a mess, even with the ACA, which is a band-aid at best. Right now, only those who have the money can afford to get the care. I'd rather have a socialized single payer system that doesn't put profits before health care. If our system is so good, why are people resorting to this?

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/fa ... ing-abroad

[callmeslick]

With half the country being vapid anti-anything that even smells of socialism, it'll be a very cold day in hell before we ever get single payer, enlightened or not. I think you're going to have to see large masses of people being denied access any kind of healthcare, just because they can't afford it. THEN single payer might have a chance.

the polling I saw last year shows support for single-payer at 62% for the under 45 demographic, 39% overall, as I recall. It won't take time for that number to spike far higher........see change in attitude towards gay marriage within a 10 year period as a reference.

[woodchip]

Letsd wait until the real polliing comes out after a year or 2 of this act when it turns out to be a bloated waste driven monstrosity.

[callmeslick]

if so, Woody, that should, if anything, drive MORE folks to conclude that a very efficient, low-overhead method such as Medicare for all would be a better choice, right?

[woodchip]

If anything inertia will drive people to accept as the govt forced them into it and it is too much work to get out of it.

[Spidey]

Yea, I want to see what happens when you force feed a program like Medicare down the throats of a system used to profits out of the ass.

This provider system is not prepared to take an income hit like that, this isn’t Japan, where everyone just gets in line like good little boys and girls.

Culture shock…here we come. Hell if providers were ready to take an income hit like Medicare would force on them…we wouldn’t have a problem to begin with.

And make sure all the people in Washington have to be on that system as well.

LOL

All we really need is to provide some basic health care for a relatively few people…and look what we get instead.

[callmeslick]

as I said, Spidey, just wait and watch as the magic of demographics does its thing. People would have laughed at the notion of a US which was accepting of gays in the military, or gay marriage, or a black President, 20 years ago today. Yet, as times change and generations march forth, one is the law, another is well on its way and the last one has been elected twice. It's called progress, and generational change.

[Spidey]

Slow generational change would be fine…but that is not what you are suggesting…is it.

Slow generational change didn’t bring us the ACA…one political party with complete control and an agenda did that.

[Ferno]

And I said you don't know what you are talking about with regard to the IRS role in enforcement and with regard to how the IRS enforces law.
Clearly you were wrong there.

you can't say i'm wrong without backing this up. Because last I checked, only the police can enforce law.

[Krom]

You should of dumped the plan. My Blue Cross only went up maybe 20% in the last 5 years or more

I did, three times, kept happening no matter where I went.

[Will Robinson]

And I said you don't know what you are talking about with regard to the IRS role in enforcement and with regard to how the IRS enforces law.
Clearly you were wrong there.

you can't say i'm wrong without backing this up. Because last I checked, only the police can enforce law.

Ferno, the federal government can give the IRS the power I described. They did so long before ACA was anyone's idea. Late 1700's in fact.
The IRS authority to seize property, impose fines, etc is the law. Their agents can enforce any law that falls under their authority as described by the federal government. It will likely be your local Sheriff's officers that delivers the notice to you but it is because the IRS agents instructions to them that causes the seizure. Although I've heard of many cases where no notice was given until long after the seizure took place. You go to take some money out of your account and the bank tells you all your accounts are frozen by the IRS.

A Tax levy, under United States Federal law, is an administrative action by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under statutory authority, without going to court, to seize property to satisfy a tax liability. The levy "includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means".[1] The general rule is that no court permission is required for the IRS to execute a section 6331 levy.[2] For taxpayers in serious debt to the IRS, the most feared weapon in the IRS arsenal is the tax levy. Using the powers granted to the IRS in the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS can levy upon wages, bank accounts, social security payments, accounts receivables, insurance proceeds, real property, and, in some cases, a personal residence. Under Internal Revenue Code section 6331, the Internal Revenue Service can “levy upon all property and rights to property” of a taxpayer who owes Federal tax. The IRS can levy upon assets that are in the possession of the taxpayer, called a seizure, or it can levy upon assets in the possession of a third party, a bank, a brokerage house, etc. All future statutory references will be to the Internal Revenue Code unless noted otherwise.

The Supreme Court decided that the penalty/fine for not buying health care coverage as specified by the ACA is a "tax", not a fine or penalty.

By designating the IRS the enforcement agency for the ACA the methods and procedures the IRS operates under will apply.

So, if you don't pay your taxes the IRS can seize your property, freeze your assets in bank accounts etc. They don't have to get a warrant first, they don't have to have a trial first. They get to deliver the punishment and then you must prove your innocence to get your property or assets returned to you.
And now in addition to being in charge of tax law enforcement the ACA Bill has added violations of ACA compliance to the IRS's authority.

I understand that sounds completely incredibly un-American and all that but it is the truth.
I don't know what else to tell you!

[CUDA]

Government agencies like the EPA can do the same types of things.

Government enforces the laws. The police are just an arm of that enforcement

[callmeslick]

Slow generational change would be fine…but that is not what you are suggesting…is it.

Slow generational change didn’t bring us the ACA…one political party with complete control and an agenda did that.

actually, what became the ACA was first proposed by a Republican congressional caucus in 1995.

[CUDA]

You should of dumped the plan. My Blue Cross only went up maybe 20% in the last 5 years or more

I did, three times, kept happening no matter where I went.

but weren't we promised that tha ACA would lower rates?

[callmeslick]

You should of dumped the plan. My Blue Cross only went up maybe 20% in the last 5 years or more

I did, three times, kept happening no matter where I went.

but weren't we promised that tha ACA would lower rates?

Ummmm, CUDA, I don't think he was talking about the ACA, but private insurance over the past 3 years. No one promised, by the way, that the ACA would reduce rates. They stated the intent that rate inflation would be SLOWED, which, for year one, it has. Don't let facts stop you though, you're on a roll now!!!!

[Spidey]

Slow generational change would be fine…but that is not what you are suggesting…is it.

Slow generational change didn’t bring us the ACA…one political party with complete control and an agenda did that.

actually, what became the ACA was first proposed by a Republican congressional caucus in 1995.

Doesn’t change the facts…parties adopt the agendas of other parties all of the time.

[callmeslick]

still, I will stand by my original assertion: this nation will readily embrace cradle-to-grave Medicare by 2020.

[Spidey]

So you can predict the future….how nice.

Well….I guess if they totally ★■◆● up the current system………

[callmeslick]

So you can predict the future….how nice.

nah, just my guess, but it is an EDUCATED guess, based on the rapid changes in public opinion over the matter(over that past 10 years), and the utter importance of the change to the business community, for the sake of global competetiveness.

Well….I guess if they totally **** up the current system………

we have, for years, paid 3 times what other nations pay, per capita, for healthcare. It has cost our economy and further, it has cost us as end-users, both financially and in terms of results(we rank well down the list in outcomes). So, no one has to feck up the system, it has been fecked up and I can't see the ACA as being radical enough to come close to completely addressing the shortcomings.

[Spidey]

So, the ACA will fail miserably, and people will demand a replacement.

[callmeslick]

So, the ACA will fail miserably, and people will demand a replacement.

not so much fail, but I can't see how, when it(or any system) depends on for-profit insurance providers, you can really cut the overhead or the inflation that much. So long as health prices rest in the hands of stockholders, and healthcare is a source of profit, not a right of citizenry, we will never join the rest of the civilized world, in terms of health costs and outcome.

[CUDA]

You should of dumped the plan. My Blue Cross only went up maybe 20% in the last 5 years or more

I did, three times, kept happening no matter where I went.

but weren't we promised that tha ACA would lower rates?

Ummmm, CUDA, I don't think he was talking about the ACA, but private insurance over the past 3 years. No one promised, by the way, that the ACA would reduce rates. They stated the intent that rate inflation would be SLOWED, which, for year one, it has. Don't let facts stop you though, you're on a roll now!!!!

1. "Everybody" will get more and pay less under the new health care law. False.

-- U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on July 1, 2012 in an interview




Claiming one law is good for "everybody" is a broad statement. For back up, Pelosi’s office pointed us to a Congressional Budget Office report, which suggested people who have to buy insurance on their own will pay lower rates, depending on their specific circumstances.

However, those numbers were averages, meaning some people would also pay more. Another part of the study, though, predicted that people would spring for better plans after costs have gone down, seeing that as a better investment for their health as they age. Those buyers would spend more money. We rated Pelosi’s claim False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entirely-/

OK twist away there slickster

[callmeslick]

Pelosi often says goofy crap. She is but two steps away from as loony, at times, than the host of wingnut right-wingers claiming that defaulting on debt is a good thing. I am talking about the actual opinion of the administration experts.

[CUDA]

Insurers say faulty data from ObamaCare marketplaces is straining their ability to handle even the first wave of consumers who were able to sign up for health insurance using federally run exchanges during the glitch-ridden rollout of the new law.

Executives at more than a dozen health insurance companies say they have received data from online marketplaces that is riddled with errors, including duplicate enrollments, missing data fields and spouses reported as children, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

No problems there. glad we didn't delay the implementation of this law for a year or anything


I really need to stop with my racist comments

[CUDA]

Pelosi often says goofy crap. She is but two steps away from as loony, at times, than the host of wingnut right-wingers claiming that defaulting on debt is a good thing. I am talking about the actual opinion of the administration experts.

SPIN

[CUDA]

and the default claim is a Lie why do you keep spreading it???

[callmeslick]

and the default claim is a Lie why do you keep spreading it???

go out and listen to the numerous claims(most outrageous was that Fla rep who was a veterinarian) that default would be good for the economy, or that it would be painless. Hell, CUDA, just wait and see what it costs us to merely allow it to come close thanks to those loons. I suspect the next few auctions, especially the notes longer than 6 months, will see a bump of 10 or 20 basis points. That costs every one of us money.

[callmeslick]

Insurers say faulty data from ObamaCare marketplaces is straining their ability to handle even the first wave of consumers who were able to sign up for health insurance using federally run exchanges during the glitch-ridden rollout of the new law.

Executives at more than a dozen health insurance companies say they have received data from online marketplaces that is riddled with errors, including duplicate enrollments, missing data fields and spouses reported as children, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

No problems there. glad we didn't delay the implementation of this law for a year or anything


I really need to stop with my racist comments

I really wonder if you ever deal with the real world, CUDA. Over the past 20 years, I have had to deal with SO many clerical errors, miscommunications and the like around my healthcare, and that of my parents, it isn't funny. Were they all Obama's fault, too??

[CUDA]

Insurers say faulty data from ObamaCare marketplaces is straining their ability to handle even the first wave of consumers who were able to sign up for health insurance using federally run exchanges during the glitch-ridden rollout of the new law.

Executives at more than a dozen health insurance companies say they have received data from online marketplaces that is riddled with errors, including duplicate enrollments, missing data fields and spouses reported as children, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

No problems there. glad we didn't delay the implementation of this law for a year or anything


I really need to stop with my racist comments

I really wonder if you ever deal with the real world, CUDA. Over the past 20 years, I have had to deal with SO many clerical errors, miscommunications and the like around my healthcare, and that of my parents, it isn't funny. Were they all Obama's fault, too??

please enlighten me. where did I mention Obama??? or are you just projecting??

[CUDA]

and the default claim is a Lie why do you keep spreading it???

go out and listen to the numerous claims(most outrageous was that Fla rep who was a veterinarian) that default would be good for the economy, or that it would be painless. Hell, CUDA, just wait and see what it costs us to merely allow it to come close thanks to those loons. I suspect the next few auctions, especially the notes longer than 6 months, will see a bump of 10 or 20 basis points. That costs every one of us money.

it's a LIe.

Moody's says it's a Lie.

and you keep spreading it, but by your own admission the President is required by the constitution to pay our debts. yet you keep spreading the default lie. why?

de·fault
noun
noun: default; plural noun: defaults
diˈfôlt,ˈdēfôlt/

1.
failure to fulfill an obligation, esp. to repay a loan or appear in a court of law.de·fault
noun
noun: default; plural noun: defaults
diˈfôlt,ˈdēfôlt/

[callmeslick]

Moody's says it's a Lie.

which is why they called it a disaster in the making. I am on their mailing list, so I can vouch for it.

and you keep spreading it, but by your own admission the President is required by the constitution to pay our debts. yet you keep spreading the default lie. why?

because under any scenario, there is no way they could keep rolling over 2 month and 6 month notes at the necessary pace with the normal cash flow, and the severe restriction on government spending to attempt to keep up would have killed that cash flow to the point where by November sometime, you flat-out wouldn't be able to pay the next batch of 2 year notes. Every economist worth squat tried to point that out. Just because you deny reality, doesn't mean reality is a lie.

and, please, stop insulting everyone's intelligence with cut and paste definitions from your dictionary. I know, and understand fully, what default consists of. I laid out for you, above, how and why we would have definitely defaulted, and quickly. Would you care to address the harm done by making the credit of the US more shaky merely through the instability of the loony fringe(see Fitch's report for a credible description of this view)? This whole mess could end up making us pay 10 or 20 basis points more for all new issuances of longer term notes. Thanks a bunch for supporting an interest rate hike for us all, from a manufactured crisis.

[CUDA]

Moody's says it's a Lie.

which is why they called it a disaster in the making. I am on their mailing list, so I can vouch for it.

and you keep spreading it, but by your own admission the President is required by the constitution to pay our debts. yet you keep spreading the default lie. why?

because under any scenario, there is no way they could keep rolling over 2 month and 6 month notes at the necessary pace with the normal cash flow, and the severe restriction on government spending to attempt to keep up would have killed that cash flow to the point where by November sometime, you flat-out wouldn't be able to pay the next batch of 2 year notes. Every economist worth squat tried to point that out. Just because you deny reality, doesn't mean reality is a lie.

and, please, stop insulting everyone's intelligence with cut and paste definitions from your dictionary. I know, and understand fully, what default consists of. I laid out for you, above, how and why we would have definitely defaulted, and quickly. Would you care to address the harm done by making the credit of the US more shaky merely through the instability of the loony fringe(see Fitch's report for a credible description of this view)? This whole mess could end up making us pay 10 or 20 basis points more for all new issuances of longer term notes. Thanks a bunch for supporting an interest rate hike for us all, from a manufactured crisis.

I never said it wasn't a bad thing if we couldn't borrow any more money. but you keep implying that we will not pay our debt obligations because of it (a default). that is a PURE Lie. so why do you keep spreading it?

WHY? because it fits your political agenda that's why. because it put the fear into the people that OMG we'll go Bankrupt, that's what the word default means to them. that is what you are implying when you continually spread the lie of default. Moodys says that if we do not raise the Debt ceiling that will be obligated to spend no more then we take in. THAT IS ALL. we will not be in default

on a side note

“I’ll give you one statistic. Woodrow Wilson borrowed 30 billion dollars to fund World War I in 1917. That money has not been paid back. And we are still paying interest on it. That’s 95 years ago. The American taxpayer pays for it with cheaper dollars because the government prints money to pay its bills and that reduces the value of everything we own. The American taxpayer pays for it with higher taxes.

how stupid is that. I'm sure that we've paid 3,4,5 times that amount in interest, but HEY it's OK we'll just keep borrowing