The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[IDBillzFan]

presto a slight human error.

 

If only they took their time, like everyone was asking back then.

 

If only they reached across the aisle for help, like everyone was asking back then.

 

Oh, well, such is result of slight human error.

[Deranged Rhino]

Both were exceptional thieves.

 

When they move up to kidnapping I'll start to show more respect.

[Tiberius]

An exchange is a marketplace. A place where people go to shop. Exchanges were created so that consumers chould shop for insurance. The act of shopping has nothing to do with subsidies.

And get subsidies for health insurance under this law. Now you are just being stupid.

[DC Tom]

They made a small mistake of omission.

 

They neglected to clearly state the situations under which people would receive subsidies. They made a HUGE mistake of ommission.

 

Kill the law and people's health insurance because of that?

 

Uh...yeah? Because, as I've said from the start: IT'S A BAD !@#$ING LAW, not because I disagreed with it in principle. but because it was an unworkable, self-contradictory mess of ill-considered and misunderstood garbage such as this.

 

As it stands now, the text of the law says people will lose their insurance because they'll lose their subsidies. So do you want to follow the law, and have people lose their insurance? Or change the law...and have people lose their insurance? Or ignore the law so people have insurance (keeping in mind that it's "gone through every single democratic process, all three branches of government, it's the law of the land, it's here to stay")?

[TakeYouToTasker]

And get subsidies for health insurance under this law. Now you are just being stupid.

So, by shopping on an exchange you get a subsidy?

[IDBillzFan]

And get subsidies for health insurance under this law. Now you are just being stupid.

 

 

You'd think if progressives really cared about Americans getting health care, they would have taken their time to write the law correctly, and not base it on what they meant it to do.

 

Better be careful, gator. First you're killing old people by taking away the health insurance they thought you were giving them...it's only a matter of time before your party is lynching the coloreds again.

[DC Tom]

So, by shopping on an exchange you get a subsidy?

 

Actually...yeah, he's right for once. You only get a tax credit if you shop on the exchange (and are below 138% of the poverty line). Buy equivalent insurance direct from the insurer, and you don't get the tax credit.

 

But here's the thing, gatorman: section 1311 of the ACA discusses the establishment of exchanges by the states. Section 1321 discusses the establishment by the federal government of exchanges within the states. Section 1401 discusses the conditions of tax credits. Read the exact wording of 1401(a) - 36B(b)(2)(a). Then look up the case law related to the use of the word "state," and the very specific legal definition of "clerical error" (i.e. typo).

[TakeYouToTasker]

Actually...yeah, he's right for once. You only get a tax credit if you shop on the exchange (and are below 138% of the poverty line). Buy equivalent insurance direct from the insurer, and you don't get the tax credit.

No, he's not. You can get subsidies by shopping on the enchanges, but you don't just get subsidies soley for using them.

 

He's stating that the purpose of the exchanges is to provide subsidies.

 

It isn't.

 

The purpose is to create a marketplace so that consumers can shop for insurance. Some of those are elidgible for subsidies.

Edited November 12, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

No, he's not. You can get subsidies by shopping on the enchanges, but you don't just get subsidies soley for using them.

 

He's stating that the purpose of the exchanges is to provide subsidies.

 

It isn't.

 

The purpose is to create a marketplace so that consumers can shop for insurance. Some of those are elidgible for subsidies.

 

You're right. I missed his first post on the subject. Gatorman, where does it say in the ACA that "the only purpose of the exchanges is to provide subsidies?" (Your words, by the way.)

 

I'll even give you a hint: the purpose of the exchanges is specified in 1311(b)(1). Hell, I'll even give you a link...https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1311

[Tiberius]

They neglected to clearly state the situations under which people would receive subsidies. They made a HUGE mistake of ommission.

Uh...yeah? Because, as I've said from the start: IT'S A BAD !@#$ING LAW, not because I disagreed with it in principle. but because it was an unworkable, self-contradictory mess of ill-considered and misunderstood garbage such as this.

 

As it stands now, the text of the law says people will lose their insurance because they'll lose their subsidies. So do you want to follow the law, and have people lose their insurance? Or change the law...and have people lose their insurance? Or ignore the law so people have insurance (keeping in mind that it's "gone through every single democratic process, all three branches of government, it's the law of the land, it's here to stay")?

so NOW you think it's a worthy case?

 

And the law is working fine and you are full of sh. It

 

No, he's not. You can get subsidies by shopping on the enchanges, but you don't just get subsidies soley for using them.

 

He's stating that the purpose of the exchanges is to provide subsidies.

It isn't.

The purpose is to create a marketplace so that consumers can shop for insurance. Some of those are elidgible for subsidies.

 

So what? Really, so what?

 

Ok, the purpose of the law through the exchanges is so people can buy insurance and to get subsidized if they cannot afford. Hurrah!

 

Happy now?

[DC Tom]

so NOW you think it's a worthy case?

 

Did I ever say reforming health care wasn't? No. I said 1) I'm philosophically opposed to socialized medicine, as I believe health care is an individual responsibility, not a public service to be provided, 2) the ACA was fundamentally flawed, and 3) the ACA was SO fundamentally flawed that people should be against it no matter WHAT their stance on how health care should be provided.

 

I've been saying that consistently before this abortion was passed. I've been perspicacious enough about it to predict First Amendment challenges to it before it was passed. It's a bad law.

 

And no, it's not working. If it were working, it wouldn't require the president to rewrite it unilaterally during press conferences.

[Alaska Darin]

Let's go back to pretending the ACA is just about the 4 tenets liberals actually know about it. Disregard the other 2700 pages. Everyone was so much happier then.

[boyst]

Let's go back to pretending the ACA is just about the 4 tenets liberals actually know about it. Disregard the other 2700 pages. Everyone was so much happier then.

So, I guess that means that we need to change the name. Clearly, the Affordable Healthcare Act is not fitting.

[Keukasmallies]

gatorman writes this stuff in study hall right after P. E.

[Tiberius]

Did I ever say reforming health care wasn't? No. I said 1) I'm philosophically opposed to socialized medicine, as I believe health care is an individual responsibility, not a public service to be provided, 2) the ACA was fundamentally flawed, and 3) the ACA was SO fundamentally flawed that people should be against it no matter WHAT their stance on how health care should be provided.

 

I've been saying that consistently before this abortion was passed. I've been perspicacious enough about it to predict First Amendment challenges to it before it was passed. It's a bad law.

 

And no, it's not working. If it were working, it wouldn't require the president to rewrite it unilaterally during press conferences.

You said this case was silly

[B-Man]

Calling Me Stupid

by Marc Siegel M.D.

 

The arrogant remarks of Obamacare architect and MIT professor Jonathan Gruber should come as no surprise. He called the American people “stupid” and said that passage of the law relied on its “lack of transparency,” which enabled it to slide through Congress and onto the public’s lap. Arrogance and condescension have too often characterized the attitudes of the current administration and their proponents. But the fact is, the American public is not stupid when it comes to Obamacare, and they are not deceived. Understanding this clunker and not liking it is precisely why this law has never been popular.

 

A health-care tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation for this July showed that more than 50 percent of Americans viewed the Affordable Care Act unfavorably, the fifth time since the bill’s passage that more than half of Americans polled by Kaiser were found to be against the health-care law.

 

Americans know that having health insurance doesn’t automatically mean access to care. Trust me, patients were wary of the state exchanges long before they began to flounder and seize. The days of my patients proudly showing their shiny new insurance cards and demanding instant service are long gone. There isn’t a patient out in my waiting room these days who isn’t familiar with the red tape of denied tests, unobtainable referrals, narrow doctor networks. The problem preexisted Obamacare, but the Affordable Care Act made it worse, as most Americans knew it would.

 

Gruber bragged that the Cadillac tax that was levied on the top employer insurance policies (instead of repealing the tax advantage) led to higher premiums, as if the public wasn’t aware that the insurance companies would immediately transfer these costs to consumers. Employers and employees everywhere are miserable under the chafing impact of Obamacare, but employers anticipated this, and it is one of the reasons that there is a rise in part-time workers who don’t qualify for these policies.

 

What American didn’t always think of the individual mandate as a tax, given that it appears on his yearly tax form and the IRS is responsible for collecting it? We already feel overtaxed, which is one reason that Obamacare never had the slightest chance of bipartisan support.

 

 

more at the link:

 

 

.

Edited November 13, 2014 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Fourth Gruber video reported from CNN...this one explaining how ACA had nothing to do with cutting costs, but it was the only way to sell it...by lying about its intent.

 

My favorite part: Nancy Pelosi denying she knows who Gruber is after acknowledging his prowess in a 2009 WaPo article. Next she'll probably explain how ACA was passed because the GOP likes to lynch the coloreds.

 

The Democratic Party has gone, undeniably, full gatorman.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2014 by LABillzFan

[IDBillzFan]

Wow. Not only does Nancy Pelosi love Gruber, but guess who else points to him as their authoritative voice on ACA?

 

Harry Reid!

 

http://youtu.be/mO0_NW8Lo_8

Edited November 13, 2014 by LABillzFan

[B-Man]

A CHEAPER, SIMPLER OBAMACARE PLAN?

 

As a frequent critic of Obamacare, I’m often asked, “Well, how would you solve the problem? Huh?” The implication is that if I don’t have a solution, I should shut up and endorse the one Democrats provided.

 

This is not sound policy thinking. As I am fond of saying, “The existence of a problem does not therefore imply the existence of a solution.” It is not inevitably true that there is some policy solution that would be better than the status quo, even if we really dislike the status quo. . . .

 

I think that from the libertarian perspective, either of these proposals should be preferable to Obamacare. I’d even argue that they should both be more appealing to progressives.

But the administration didn’t want simple, modest and stable; it wanted a massive, transformational legacy

. Which is why, four years later, we’re still fighting about it.

 

 

 

 

 

WaPo fact check: Yes, Gruber got $400,000 for ObamaCare work.

“Or, if you prefer a more acerbic conclusion, taxpayers paid Jonathan Gruber in the mid-six-figures to lie to them, and then brag about it to all of his friends and fans later.”

 

 

 

DO TELL: Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber: Obama Was in the Room When the Cadillac Tax Was Created.

 

Which was verified by White House Visitor logs, Gruber was present at the Oval Office planning meeting that Obama attended on July 20, 2009. Gruber’s “objective analysis” showing that Obamacare would lower premiums was featured on the White House blog in November 2009.

 

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Ladies and gentlemen, your Democratic Party: Fifth Gruber video now has him condescendingly mocking a Vermont voter.

 

As Gruber sits listening, the committee chair reads a comment from a Vermonter who expresses concern that the economist’s plan might lead to “ballooning costs, increased taxes and bureaucratic outrages,” among other things.

 

After hearing the Vermonter’s worries, Gruber responds, “Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?”

 

The remark was met with uproarious laughter.