TakeYouToTasker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Democrats killed the public option. I'm aware. I was being snarky. That said, with Democrats killing the public option they have no one to blame but themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 In theory it clarifies exactly what you get and for how much regarding the plans that are available to you. Promoting transparency and enhancing competition. In reality, you don't get a subsidy unless you use the exchange. I've not researched this thoroughly so perhaps I've missed something. Aren't these subsidies part of the Medicaid expansion & only available to people in states that signed on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I've not researched this thoroughly so perhaps I've missed something. Aren't these subsidies part of the Medicaid expansion & only available to people in states that signed on? Not sure, but in VA if you are a family of 4 and your household income is greater than 91k, you gets nada... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) I've not researched this thoroughly so perhaps I've missed something. Aren't these subsidies part of the Medicaid expansion & only available to people in states that signed on? Been months since I've thought about it...but if I recall correctly...no. The subsidies come directly from the feds through the IRS and you get them if you sign up through the exchange (federal or state) and purchase an individual policy and qualify financially. Medicaid is a "state program" that the feds pay for and partially control but it is ultimately a state program (or "state administered program" if you like). Therefore, unless States agree to accept the additional Medcaid money it doesn't get to the people b/c it must pass through the "state program" to get there. Edited November 1, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Been months since I've thought about it...but if I recall correctly...no. The subsidies come directly from the feds through the IRS and you get them if you sign up through the exchange (federal or state) and purchase an individual policy and qualify financially. Actually, subsidies are only available through state run exchanges. Meaning peon in the 34 states that didn't setup exchanges won't get them unless they change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Actually, subsidies are only available through state run exchanges. Meaning peon in the 34 states that didn't setup exchanges won't get them unless they change it. Not saying you're wrong, but I'm 99% sure I'm correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 2, 2013 Author Share Posted November 2, 2013 Oh, you saw this coming, did you? The technical problems or that not enough people would sign up? And what market based reforms would you like to see? Bull **** The choice of President didn't change anything, other than who ended up with a larger percentage of taxpayer money. The same likely holds true right now, unless this administration actually passes Health Care and/or Cap and Trade. Then you're going to see a collapse of epic proportions in the not too distant future. The problem is the cost of things has continued to skyrocket because government continues to !@#$ things up by trying to control everything. They've driven up the cost of housing, food, cars, insurance, and medical care because they simply won't let the market work the way it should. Your solution is even more of the same ****! You'd have a better chance of success if you prayed to the God of Powdered Deer Penis. It's like ObamaCare. It fixes NOTHING but has THOUSANDS of pages of bull ****. You liberals trumpet it like it's the Arc of the !@#$ing Covanent but there's not a single provision in it that does anything to address the actual problems that cause health care to be expensive. Because if an entity can't get something as simple as this process to work easily (especially with the frequency it happens), there is NO WAY IN HELL they aren't going to seriously screw up something with as many intangibles as health care. I'd ask you to think about it, but given your track record... You mean like it has in Canada, which has virtually the same percentage of people without health care as the US? It's amazing after all the data that I've presented here that you'll continue to pretend that government anything on a large scale isn't a disaster. Canada has a smaller population than California and Texas but can't get health care costs under control, nor can they provide even average care to the majority of it's citizens, yet we're going to pull it off because we've got American ingenuity and liberal ideology on our side. Too funny. People having "insurance" hasn't made health care less expensive. So far, there's been little to nothing reported on "ObamaCare" that shows tangible proof that costs will decrease at all. In fact, virtually everything I've seen shows it'll increase it at around the current rate or higher. At the end of the day, "Affordable Care" is no different than the "HMO Act of 1977". It won't reduce costs, won't improve efficiency, and there will still be a similar percentage of people who will be without coverage . What it will do is create a larger bureaucracy at every level of government and create some more drones. Obamacare didn't even attempt to address the things that make health care expensive. I love the fact that liberals chirp about how health care in America is failing because it's "capitalist", when it's nothing of the sort. There are plenty more examples but I got tired of cutting and pasting. As far as your question about market based reforms, learn to use the search function because I've posted about it numerous times. Frankly, I'm tired of your crap and how little you bring to the community. I've wasted as much time on you as I care to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Not saying you're wrong, but I'm 99% sure I'm correct. You're 100% wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 There are plenty more examples but I got tired of cutting and pasting. As far as your question about market based reforms, learn to use the search function because I've posted about it numerous times. Frankly, I'm tired of your crap and how little you bring to the community. I've wasted as much time on you as I care to. I like it when you get angry. Gatorgirl is a pain, anyway you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 You're 100% wrong. Anyone who knows anything about administrative law knows that article is for fools. They will give it the good fight though, obviously. The rule is there though, therefore I'm 100% right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Anyone who knows anything about administrative law knows that article is for fools. They will give it the good fight though, obviously. The rule is there though, therefore I'm 100% right. The law says state run exchanges. The article has nothing to do with anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 The law says state run exchanges. The article has nothing to do with anything. It will be an interesting debate over legislative intent, which usually presumes that the Congress meant what language was in the bill that was passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 GATORTROLL Both Darin and I have posted earlier posts where we criticized ObamaCare. We did this to refute your claims here that nobody thought that it was doomed to be a failure before it became a failure. I can understand why you are not responding to me. After all, I did tell you to STFU so you must be taking my advice. Darin thoroughly refuted your comments. Just so it's perfectly clear I don't want you to think that you can't respond to anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 It just says that the regular stimulous program worked better created. Ummmm....ok I may just make a career out of trying to decipher G'man's comments rather than bother to read entire posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 HHS Secretary Sebelius Testifies Before Senate Finance Committee http://www.c-span.org/ "So I want to ask you about the navigators," said Senator John Cornyn at a hearing today on Capitol Hill. "The president is in Dallas, Texas today, touting the navigator program, which, as you know, are people who are hired to help people navigate the Affordable Care Act. But I would just like to ask you this question, if you would answer it: Isn't it true that there is no federal requirement for navigators to undergo a criminal background check, even though they will receive personal -- sensitive personal -- information from the individuals they help to sign-up for the Affordable Care Act?" "That is true," said Sebelius. "States could add an additional background checks and other features, but it is not part of the federal requirement" "So a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them?" "That is possible," said Sebelius. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts