DescentBB

CUDA wrote: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

CUDA wrote: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"

Krom wrote:

CUDA wrote: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.

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

tunnelcat wrote: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.

tunnelcat wrote: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 wrote: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.

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

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: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.

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.

Spidey wrote: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.

Krom wrote:

woodchip wrote: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.

CUDA wrote:

Krom wrote:

woodchip wrote: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 wrote:

Spidey wrote: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.

Spidey wrote:So you can predict the future….how nice.

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

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

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Krom wrote:

woodchip wrote: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.

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.

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

CUDA wrote:

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

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

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??

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote: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.

CUDA wrote: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?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote: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’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.