Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

TGHusker said:
Ouch - Obama Care $20k per family of 4 or 5 in 2016 per IRS model.

http://cnsnews.com/n...be-20000-family
Click to expand...
Ouch . . . CNSNews ("The Right News. Right Now."). Click the source link and you'll see that these are all hypothetical numbers used to "provide guidance on the liability for the shared responsibility payment . . .". The IRS proposed regulation (not final regulation as claimed in the very first sentence) does NOT assume that the cheapest family plan is $20,000. That's flat out false . . . and they provide the link disproving their own claims.

I guess they know that their readers won't bother checking the facts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KJ. said:
At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).
Click to expand...
Ah. The old "redistribution of wealth" cliche.

KJ. said:
It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.
Click to expand...
*Backed by conservatives before Obama embraced it.

 
carlfense said:
TGHusker said:
Ouch - Obama Care $20k per family of 4 or 5 in 2016 per IRS model.

http://cnsnews.com/n...be-20000-family
Click to expand...
Ouch . . . CNSNews ("The Right News. Right Now."). Click the source link and you'll see that these are all hypothetical numbers used to "provide guidance on the liability for the shared responsibility payment . . .". The IRS proposed regulation (not final regulation as claimed in the very first sentence) does NOT assume that the cheapest family plan is $20,000. That's flat out false . . . and they provide the link disproving their own claims.

I guess they know that their readers won't bother checking the facts.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion. I don't think anyone knows where rates will end up until it is fully implemented.

 
carlfense said:
TGHusker said:
Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion. I don't think anyone knows where rates will end up until it is fully implemented.
Click to expand...
Misinformation doesn't really add to the discussion . . .
Click to expand...
Carl, there is a lot of misinformation being thrown out there from both sides - prices will be cheaper, prices will be higher, etc My link was just part of the chatter. 2014 will tell all IMHO.

 
carlfense said:
TGHusker said:
Carl, there is a lot of misinformation being thrown out there from both sides - prices will be cheaper, prices will be higher, etc My link was just part of the chatter. 2014 will tell all IMHO.
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
Click to expand...
:facepalm: Nothing wrong is throwing chatter out there to discuss the merits or non-merits. Isn't that what the forum is all about? Your OP is part of the chatter - There is no guaranty where the prices will end up at this point with all of the claims and counter claims.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker said:
Nothing wrong is throwing chatter out there to discuss the merits or non-merits. Isn't that what the forum is all about?
Click to expand...
The most useful way to confront misinformation is to provide factual information. What you did was provide misinformation as fact and when called on it you said that both sides provide misinformation. How is that useful?

TGHusker said:
Your OP is part of the chatter - There is no guaranty where the prices will end up at this point with all of the claims and counter claims.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by the bold? My OP cites actual quotes for insurance plans on the California exchange. Your post falsely asserts that an IRS final regulation assumes that under Obamacare insurance will cost $20,000 for a family of four. It seems silly for you to equate the two and then walk it back saying that other people contribute to the "chatter."

 
carlfense said:
Ah. The old "redistribution of wealth" cliche.
Click to expand...
It's not exactly a cliche when part of the law is prohibiting insurers from charging men different rates from women (they don't cost the same) or healthy people different rates from unhealthy people (neither do they).

The pie is currently cut unevenly. The ACA is evening it out. That's the definition of "redistribution of wealth".

But nice try.

 
carlfense said:
KJ. said:
It's not exactly a cliche . . .
Click to expand...
No . . . it still is. Would you like to talk about job creators next?
Click to expand...
No, it still isn't.

Is the phrase overused? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't take away anything from the meaning of it. My point was based off the completely objective fact that the ACA places additional restrictions on the pricing of insurance. Anyone with an intelligence rating higher than dumbass can see that will create a redistribution of wealth/premiums in the insurance market. You can call it cliche/trite/overused/whatever all you want, but that's exactly what it is.

And why the hell would I want to talk about job creators? Am I missing something there? I don't see what job creators has to do with this exchange you and I have going based on your disappointment in my choice in vocabulary.

 
KJ. said:
Is the phrase overused? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't take away anything from the meaning of it.
Click to expand...
Definitely a cliche, IMO. It's a bumper sticker phrase.

KJ. said:
And why the hell would I want to talk about job creators? Am I missing something there? I don't see what job creators has to do with this exchange you and I have going based on your disappointment in my choice in vocabulary.
Click to expand...
Because it's another easily repeatable catchphrase that can be thoughtlessly regurgitated.

 
carlfense said:
TGHusker said:
Ouch - Obama Care $20k per family of 4 or 5 in 2016 per IRS model.

http://cnsnews.com/n...be-20000-family
Click to expand...
Ouch . . . CNSNews ("The Right News. Right Now."). Click the source link and you'll see that these are all hypothetical numbers used to "provide guidance on the liability for the shared responsibility payment . . .". The IRS proposed regulation (not final regulation as claimed in the very first sentence) does NOT assume that the cheapest family plan is $20,000. That's flat out false . . . and they provide the link disproving their own claims.

I guess they know that their readers won't bother checking the facts.
Click to expand...
Carl, facts aren't welcome in a policy debate. You know that. We FEEL Obamacare is evil, that's what really matters.

 
carlfense said:
KJ. said:
Is the phrase overused? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't take away anything from the meaning of it.
Click to expand...
Definitely a cliche, IMO. It's a bumper sticker phrase.

KJ. said:
And why the hell would I want to talk about job creators? Am I missing something there? I don't see what job creators has to do with this exchange you and I have going based on your disappointment in my choice in vocabulary.
Click to expand...
Because it's another easily repeatable catchphrase that can be thoughtlessly regurgitated.
Click to expand...
Ok. If you feel the need to attack the phrase and its abuse by politicians or news outlets, that's fine. I don't follow or read anything about politics, so you're probably right that it typically just gets used as a catch phrase.

But don't use the misuse of the phrase by others as any sort of a contradictory point to my original post. Or else we could always delve into the math behind the ACA, in which case we'd find out who really is thoughtless here.

 
Back
Top