obamaKare: the destruction begins

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ obamaKare: the destruction begins
Devils Advocate's avatar

Devils Advocate

Brudda o da bomber

4,539 posts
Sep 23, 2013 12:19 PM
QuakerOats;1505774 wrote:Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four...

over a 9 year period ****estimated**** add hyperbole*****

***** Throw on some additional horse shit*******








Change we can believe in...
Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.
...
Sep 23, 2013 12:19pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Sep 23, 2013 12:44 PM
Shit, healthcare has gone up much more than that on it's own in the last 9 years. Now if this is on top of what the normal increase is, then shit. But still, healthcare costs just keep going up and up without anyone's help.
Sep 23, 2013 12:44pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Sep 23, 2013 1:18 PM
WebFire;1505854 wrote:Shit, healthcare has gone up much more than that on it's own in the last 9 years. Now if this is on top of what the normal increase is, then shit. But still, healthcare costs just keep going up and up without anyone's help.
Nevermind the fact that it was SOLD to the sheep that it would bring costs DOWN $2,500 per family. And it wouldn't increase the deficit more than a trillion or so over 10 years. And it wouldn't create a panel board to oversee whom qualifies for benefits at an elderly age. And it was going to create competition, even though the plans are ordained by Our Dear Leader. And it wasn't going to raid Medicare for funding. And if we like our insurance we can keep it. And on and on and fucking on.
Sep 23, 2013 1:18pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Sep 23, 2013 1:54 PM
BGFalcons82;1505875 wrote:Nevermind the fact that it was SOLD to the sheep that it would bring costs DOWN $2,500 per family. And it wouldn't increase the deficit more than a trillion or so over 10 years. And it wouldn't create a panel board to oversee whom qualifies for benefits at an elderly age. And it was going to create competition, even though the plans are ordained by Our Dear Leader. And it wasn't going to raid Medicare for funding. And if we like our insurance we can keep it. And on and on and fucking on.
Oh trust me, I'm against it. I just wondered of the figure given was how much health insurance would increase overall, or was it just Obama's piece of the increase.
Sep 23, 2013 1:54pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Sep 23, 2013 2:48 PM
"Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[SUP][1][/SUP]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law."
Sep 23, 2013 2:48pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Sep 23, 2013 2:55 PM
I wish they had the votes to defund it, just to watch Obama dance. I don't actually think he would veto it, because doing so would mean taking 100% ownership at that point.
Sep 23, 2013 2:55pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Sep 23, 2013 3:26 PM
QuakerOats;1505918 wrote:"Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[SUP][1][/SUP]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law."


Bam! Thanks.
Sep 23, 2013 3:26pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Sep 25, 2013 2:26 PM
Valiant effort by the Canadian, but the Kenyan retains the title.
Sep 25, 2013 2:26pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Sep 25, 2013 4:38 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303983904579095731139251304.html?mod=djemalertNEWS#project%3DEXCHANGES0924%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive


In the 36 states where the federal govt runs the exchanges, the premiums for the lowest level plan for a 27 year-old is going up from an average of $66 to $170. Just a mere 257% increase; almost a tripling of the expense.

The lies perpetrated on the young are especially unforgivable.
Sep 25, 2013 4:38pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Sep 25, 2013 10:49 PM
Quaker, I think you're a whack job but on Obamacare you're spot on. It's an absolute joke of a law and I personally cannot wait to see the rationalization by my young "friends" who voted for this clown when their healthcare bills start skyrocketing. I'm fortunate that I make enough money that I don't give a shit but I do care about the majority of young people who are already struggling in this shitty economy and then have to deal with a bullshit cost like this.
Sep 25, 2013 10:49pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Sep 26, 2013 4:36 AM
One of my close friends (and former co-workers) is going to be heavily affected by the flex spending account limit. He and his wife have a special needs child, and he maxed out his flex spending account, which I believe was between $12,000 - $15,000 at our place of employment. Obamacare will now reduce the flex account to $2,500. So he will have to pay for her care in post-tax dollars. This is an example of another unintended consequence of a bill ramrodded through Congress that no one understood and no one read. It is a national disgrace.
Sep 26, 2013 4:36am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Sep 26, 2013 4:52 AM
Sep 26, 2013 4:52am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 26, 2013 9:41 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;1507441 wrote:One of my close friends (and former co-workers) is going to be heavily affected by the flex spending account limit. He and his wife have a special needs child, and he maxed out his flex spending account, which I believe was between $12,000 - $15,000 at our place of employment. Obamacare will now reduce the flex account to $2,500. So he will have to pay for her care in post-tax dollars. This is an example of another unintended consequence of a bill ramrodded through Congress that no one understood and no one read. It is a national disgrace.
I'm not saying whether or not the lower limits on flexible spending accounts are a good policy...but I don't think this was an unitended consequence. Obama and the democrats who passed this bill clearly wanted people like your rich friend to get less tax-advantaged treatment to help offset the "costs" of providing subsidies to teh p00rz who don't have employers providing cafeteria plans.
Sep 26, 2013 9:41am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Sep 26, 2013 9:53 AM
BoatShoes;1507586 wrote:I'm not saying whether or not the lower limits on flexible spending accounts are a good policy...but I don't think this was an unitended consequence. Obama and the democrats who passed this bill clearly wanted people like your rich friend to get less tax-advantaged treatment to help offset the "costs" of providing subsidies to teh p00rz who don't have employers providing cafeteria plans.
Where did he say his friend was rich?
Sep 26, 2013 9:53am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 26, 2013 10:05 AM
WebFire;1507589 wrote:Where did he say his friend was rich?
MB's friends are all rich important people...probably a partner at a large law firm and despite what some partners at large law firms might say otherwise....they're rich.

Besides it should be obvious based on MB's description. The median personal income for an individual over 25 is $32,140 and MB is talking about his buddy putting half of that in a flexible spending account lol
Sep 26, 2013 10:05am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Sep 26, 2013 10:23 AM
sleeper;1507400 wrote:Quaker, I think you're a whack job but on Obamacare you're spot on.

Hey now, I had you freed from the basement with my superior, behind-the-scenes, influence.

Plus, I am a defender of liberty and advocate for fiscal sanity, thus I can only be a whack job in the eyes of the obama/pelosi/reid triumvirate and other marxists.
Sep 26, 2013 10:23am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Sep 26, 2013 10:53 AM
"MB's friends are all rich important people...probably a partner at a large law firm and despite what some partners at large law firms might say otherwise....they're rich"

They are relatively rich. And you are an asshole. He's an associate (my age though) at a firm where he makes about $130,000/year as a senior associate. He has a special needs child that requires 24/7 care. Either his wife (that doesn't work) does it or their nanny does. The nanny doesn't accept Obamacare, she needs real money.

Maybe in some sort of $^#%ed up world in liberal-land $130,000/year is rich for a 40 year old attorney with three kids. In reality, this law is going to hurt them significantly.

BTW Boatshoes, you're an asshole.
Sep 26, 2013 10:53am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 26, 2013 11:16 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;1507634 wrote:"MB's friends are all rich important people...probably a partner at a large law firm and despite what some partners at large law firms might say otherwise....they're rich"

They are relatively rich. And you are an asshole. He's an associate (my age though) at a firm where he makes about $130,000/year as a senior associate. He has a special needs child that requires 24/7 care. Either his wife (that doesn't work) does it or their nanny does. The nanny doesn't accept Obamacare, she needs real money.

Maybe in some sort of $^#%ed up world in liberal-land $130,000/year is rich for a 40 year old attorney with three kids. In reality, this law is going to hurt them significantly.

BTW Boatshoes, you're an asshole.
Wife who doesn't work or Nanny does it. LOL! <------------- What more needs to be said???

I wonder what teh p00rz with special needs children would think of this blubber when they have to send their handicapped loved ones off to nursing homes. And then they're just takers on the welfare state anyways because they'd have to rely on medicaid instead of subsidized accounts with special consumption tax treatment that mostly only high-earners/producers/non-takers get to use...

If it was a p00r we were talking about...Sleeper now that he's free might chime in and say how they should be jailed and/or castrated for having children they couldn't afford.

"Oh woe is me...I'm going to have to pay for my child with after-tax dollars while the p00rz could only dream of having that type of problem when it comes to their special needs children"

And even better...that Nanny who I'm sure your bro doesn't provide health insurance for like he gets through his employer...is now going to be able to buy subsidized individual insurance that has similar benefits like free checkups that people like your bro get through his firm.....not high-deductible catastrophic insurance that you think is good enough for teh p00rz but is pretty much universally unpopular.

But I appreciate the kind words.
Sep 26, 2013 11:16am
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Sep 26, 2013 11:17 AM
I meet with Small Business Customers all the time, Businesses under 2 Million in Total Sales. The vast majority, the number one concern is how this is going to effect their business. Whether its the cost of healthcare or the effect of their partners/vendors/customers not having as much disposable income to use their services/products.
Sep 26, 2013 11:17am