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

[B-Large]

yep, just like all the social security tax that's supposedly going into a separate account, it all actually goes into the general fund.

 

which of course has been overspent by approximately 9 trillion dollars in the last six years.

 

Oh baby, just too much money to resist!!!

 

this is why I have been in favor or privatizing SS ever since GWB proposed it (I htink his was a partial proposal) back in early 2000's. It'd be one thing if all those taxes collected where in a safe dedicated account, but that is not he case. Let Amercians put their money in Fidelity or Vanguard just like they would SS... keep the fees ultra low, I just don't see that harm? SS used to be attractive because of the strenght of US credit, like like treasuries... but you have think sooner rather than later than will cease to be the case...

[B-Man]

And since almost all the states in question are Blue states, that also means their finances are already in bad shape.

 

 

 

States don't know how they'll pay for year two of Obamacare

by Sarah Kliff

 

More than a dozen states decided to build new health insurance marketplaces under Obamacare. Now, they need to figure out how to pay the costs of running those massive websites.

 

The Affordable Care Act provided federal grant funding for states to get their new web portals up and running. The Obama administration doled out $4.6 billion in grants to states launching their own marketplaces.

 

But Obamacare also requires state exchanges to become self-sustaining by the start of 2015. That means every state exchange that will operate next year now needs to figure out how to pay their bills. Every marketplace needs to be able to pay staff (which sometimes number in the hundreds), maintain office space and continue running outreach campaigns to increase the insurance rate.

 

"There won't be any big pot of federal money," says Elizabeth Carpenter, a director at health research firm Avalere. "When you think about being able to run an exchange without the federal backstop, it will take awhile to forecast and figure out what money is needed."

 

More at the link:

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2...wo-of-obamacare

[IDBillzFan]

Oh baby, just too much money to resist!!!

 

this is why I have been in favor or privatizing SS ever since GWB proposed it (I htink his was a partial proposal) back in early 2000's. It'd be one thing if all those taxes collected where in a safe dedicated account, but that is not he case. Let Amercians put their money in Fidelity or Vanguard just like they would SS... keep the fees ultra low, I just don't see that harm? SS used to be attractive because of the strenght of US credit, like like treasuries... but you have think sooner rather than later than will cease to be the case...

 

And let us opt out if we so choose.

[FireChan]

Oh baby, just too much money to resist!!!

 

this is why I have been in favor or privatizing SS ever since GWB proposed it (I htink his was a partial proposal) back in early 2000's. It'd be one thing if all those taxes collected where in a safe dedicated account, but that is not he case. Let Amercians put their money in Fidelity or Vanguard just like they would SS... keep the fees ultra low, I just don't see that harm? SS used to be attractive because of the strenght of US credit, like like treasuries... but you have think sooner rather than later than will cease to be the case...

 

Privatized SS would never work. People are too stupid to take care of themselves.

[B-Large]

Privatized SS would never work. People are too stupid to take care of themselves.

And let us opt out if we so choose.

 

I think that is the point- you still require people to contribute, but they can put it in private accounts that cannot be used by Politicans.

 

I'd be for opting out, and turning SS into a true safety net program to be honest. Help those who truly need it at the end of their working years, not just a national pension program.

[IDBillzFan]

I'd be for opting out, and turning SS into a true safety net program to be honest. Help those who truly need it at the end of their working years, not just a national pension program.

 

Here's the simple deal I want: Let me opt out now, collect nothing when I retire, and the government can keep what I've given them for the past 30 years. A clean break.

 

Seems like a win-win, no?

 

I wonder how many people would take that deal?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Privatized SS would never work. People are too stupid to take care of themselves.

Sounds like that's their problem.

 

The reason people don't save and plan for retirement is largely because we tell them they don't have to.

 

Of course, some people will always do the "wrong thing", and not set aside anything, but I am not my brother's keeper.

 

Put an absolute minimum subsistence program in place for the indigent; and require everyone to plan for their own retirements. Once someone's funds are exhausted, they go on the minimum subsistence program.

[FireChan]

Sounds like that's their problem.

 

The reason people don't save and plan for retirement is largely because we tell them they don't have to.

 

Of course, some people will always do the "wrong thing", and not set aside anything, but I am not my brother's keeper.

 

Put an absolute minimum subsistence program in place for the indigent; and require everyone to plan for their own retirements. Once someone's funds are exhausted, they go on the minimum subsistence program.

 

What kind of minimum subsistence? Bread & water?

 

I get your point, I really do. I think we're too altruistic of a species to ever let that happen. There'd be starvation in the streets if we didn't force the masses to save.

[TakeYouToTasker]

What kind of minimum subsistence? Bread & water?

 

I get your point, I really do. I think we're too altruistic of a species to ever let that happen. There'd be starvation in the streets if we didn't force the masses to save.

For a single generation, if implemented hard and fast, but it would accomplish many things:

 

1) It would drive people back into community involvement, bringing neighborhoods and extended families closer together.

2) It would drive a sweeping wave of anti-consumerism and self reliance.

3) Churches and charities would once again become central and essential to the communities.

4) Much as the Great Depression drove generations of savings behavior, this would have the same effect.

 

With that said, I have no desire to implement hard and fast. We've made promises to people who now, due to the passage of time, and advanced age, have no other options; and we shouldn't default on our promises.

 

Instead, we should be honest with those now paying into the system, and do a gradual phaseout.

Edited June 23, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Large]

Here's the simple deal I want: Let me opt out now, collect nothing when I retire, and the government can keep what I've given them for the past 30 years. A clean break.

 

Seems like a win-win, no?

 

I wonder how many people would take that deal?

 

right, that is the challenge with these program once they start- where do you cut the cord, because someone is gonna get screwed.

 

I think its reasonable- it hard to justify that forced savings, that at some point will be gone, whereas it could still be there in private accounts.

[B-Large]

What kind of minimum subsistence? Bread & water?

 

I get your point, I really do. I think we're too altruistic of a species to ever let that happen. There'd be starvation in the streets if we didn't force the masses to save.

 

that seems to be a popular notion, but I question its accuracy. People are irresposnible with money because we let them be- we don't teach out kids (Who become adults) about borrowing, credit, and what financing is really all about. You know you have an issue in this country when people finance 50K vehicles for 84 months. I think if we put a focus on learning about money, and being reposnsible, people would have the tool to do much better.

 

Tune into a episode of Suze Orman's show sometime- the questions Americans ask are frightening.

 

Sounds like that's their problem.

 

The reason people don't save and plan for retirement is largely because we tell them they don't have to.

 

Of course, some people will always do the "wrong thing", and not set aside anything, but I am not my brother's keeper.

 

Put an absolute minimum subsistence program in place for the indigent; and require everyone to plan for their own retirements. Once someone's funds are exhausted, they go on the minimum subsistence program.

 

Yep, Safety Net = Dignified End to Life

[FireChan]

For a single generation, if implemented hard and fast, but it would accomplish many things:

 

1) It would drive people back into community involvement, bringing neighborhoods and extended families closer together.

2) It would drive a sweeping wave of anti-consumerism and self reliance.

3) Churches and charities would once again become central and essential to the communities.

4) Much as the Great Depression drove generations of savings behavior, this would have the same effect.

 

With that said, I have no desire to implement hard and fast. We've made promises to people who now, due to the passage of time, and advanced age, have no other options; and we shouldn't default on our promises.

 

Instead, we should be honest with those now paying into the system, and do a gradual phaseout.

 

I agree with that.

 

The only issue I see with this option is that the US government has a vested interest in making sure #2 doesn't come to pass. I don't believe they want anti-consumerism.

 

that seems to be a popular notion, but I question its accuracy. People are irresposnible with money because we let them be- we don't teach out kids (Who become adults) about borrowing, credit, and what financing is really all about. You know you have an issue in this country when people finance 50K vehicles for 84 months. I think if we put a focus on learning about money, and being reposnsible, people would have the tool to do much better.

 

I guess that was my point. If SS was gone tomorrow, our kids would almost all adapt. It's the 48 year old, debt-filled plumber with 3 kids who'd starve.

Edited June 23, 2014 by FireChan

[B-Large]

I agree with that.

 

The only issue I see with this option is that the US government has a vested interest in making sure #2 doesn't come to pass. I don't believe they want anti-consumerism.

 

 

 

I guess that was my point. If SS was gone tomorrow, our kids would almost all adapt. It's the 48 year old, debt-filled plumber with 3 kids who'd starve.

 

It will never be a clean break.... but at some point, we will almost be forced to make changes.

[B-Man]

Dr Barbara Bellar sums up Obamacare in one sentence

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbFrAAV3-o

[keepthefaith]

Dr Barbara Bellar sums up Obamacare in one sentence

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbFrAAV3-o

 

That is spectacular.

[Alaska Darin]

And since almost all the states in question are Blue states, that also means their finances are already in bad shape.

 

 

 

States don't know how they'll pay for year two of Obamacare

by Sarah Kliff

 

More than a dozen states decided to build new health insurance marketplaces under Obamacare. Now, they need to figure out how to pay the costs of running those massive websites.

 

The Affordable Care Act provided federal grant funding for states to get their new web portals up and running. The Obama administration doled out $4.6 billion in grants to states launching their own marketplaces.

 

But Obamacare also requires state exchanges to become self-sustaining by the start of 2015. That means every state exchange that will operate next year now needs to figure out how to pay their bills. Every marketplace needs to be able to pay staff (which sometimes number in the hundreds), maintain office space and continue running outreach campaigns to increase the insurance rate.

 

"There won't be any big pot of federal money," says Elizabeth Carpenter, a director at health research firm Avalere. "When you think about being able to run an exchange without the federal backstop, it will take awhile to forecast and figure out what money is needed."

 

More at the link:

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2...wo-of-obamacare

Wait until they figure out the pension load of all those "employees."

[B-Man]

You knew this was coming. It's here.

 

Obamacare Exchanges Are ‘Disappointing’ With Fewer Than 4 Million Newly Insured. The Government Hoped for 26 Million.

by Sharyl Attkisson

 

Original Article

[Nanker]

But the 32 million who still haven't bought coverage are shirking their Constitutional OBLIGATION to buy insurance! Don't they understand that it's a REQUIREMENT to be covered? WTF is WRONG with these people?

[IDBillzFan]

You knew this was coming. It's here.

 

Obamacare Exchanges Are ‘Disappointing’ With Fewer Than 4 Million Newly Insured. The Government Hoped for 26 Million.

by Sharyl Attkisson

 

Original Article

 

Okay, yes, that's pretty bad, but remember, if we only insure one person, it'll be worth the untold trillions spent.

[Koko78]

But the 32 million who still haven't bought coverage are shirking their Constitutional OBLIGATION to buy insurance! Don't they understand that it's a REQUIREMENT to be covered? WTF is WRONG with these people?

 

Damn that Bush.