Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

He/she/its talking about that 25/75 plan

WEBCO

I'd be happy if you could just make it affordable. Obamacare for just me would cost $593.00/ month.

DASHY

You can tell your single 25-year old friend he is not alone in paying for his girl friend's a******n. Taxpayers are helping him. The "new" law is still working because Republican lawmakers have not come up with a better plan.

WEBCO

Must be convenient to have all the world's problems caused by MAGA. I'm guessing you live a very blissful life

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Where did you get the foolish notion I was talking about a personal friend paying for his girlfriend's a******n,
as in a pregnancy he was responsible for?
Are you stuck on stupid and cannot think outside your box?

DASHY

I thought you were worried about single men being required to pay for a******ns. Are you now in favor of a******ns as long as the single man doesn't have to pay for it?

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***Just once can you tell the whole t***h.
>>>No it can't. It is just on another troll trip.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

You're just a troll. Admit it

Troll alert

Rose42

There’s another lie. You just don’t stop. It wasn’t ‘threats by maga that caused many to get out of the profession’. Members of my family are in the health care field and they are predominantly liberal.

The question is why do you make things up?

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

My Obamacare numbers:

2020 Me & Spouse 1815.87 per month, 5650/11300 deductible, 6950/13900 Max OP, 30/60 Copay
2021 Me & Spouse 1847.20 per month, 2995/5990 deductible, 8400/16800 Max OP, 30/65 Copay
2022 Spouse 977.78 per month, 6100 deductible, 6100 Max OP, 100% Copay
2023 Spouse 1132.86 per month, 5450 deductible, 8400 Max OP, 25/50 Copay
2024 Spouse 1247.10 per month, 6000 deductible, 8500 Max OP, 25/50 Copay

Fun Fact 1: Obamacare is/was not affordable for us.
Fun Fact 2: Obviously, my premiums are subsidizing other peoples (the collective) whom I do not care about.
Fun Fact 3: Why is it the government's obligation to provide healthcare for any of its citizens. Take care of yourself and family, or not. Healthcare is not a right, if I have to pay for yours.
Fun Fact 4: Medicare plus supplemental is good, and 1/3 the cost. Eight months until my spouse is on the governement medicare dole too! A nice raise is coming.

TJKMO Loc: Bicycle Heaven

[quote=Blade_Runner]to be another socialist mandate for redistribution of wealth.
SCOTUS ruled it as a "tax".

Why should a single, 25 year old man have to pay for a******ns?
Why can't each individual and family tailor their healthcare coverage for their specific health needs?

What about

Obamacare: Impact on the Economy
Authors: Guinevere Nell and Karen Campbell

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the health care bill signed into law by President Obama in March, will overhaul the current health insurance system by enforcing mandates on individuals and businesses, expanding Medicaid, and introducing new taxes and fines to help pay for the increased “federal budgetary commitment to health care.”

Contrary to a key intention of the legislation, the combination of mandates and taxes will not help to reduce the deficit. In fact, the PPACA will likely increase the deficit by an average $75 billion per year, and as a result, the nation’s publicly held debt will be $753 billion higher at the end of 2020. Such astronomical debt crowds out other productive investments and will lead to an estimated 670,000 lost job opportunities per year.

Dynamic Analysis Confirms Fears

It was the goal of health care reform to be deficit neutral—as scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—within the first 10 years of enactment. In order to achieve this goal, the new law immediately imposes a combination of new taxes on high-income individuals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals and Medicare spending cuts. In addition, the PPACA delays subsidy payments to help make insurance affordable for those with lower incomes and Medicaid expansions to cover more of the uninsured.

However, the static budget analysis is limited in that it does not account for how the policy combination of spending and taxes alters the macroeconomic performance of the economy and feeds back onto the budget. A dynamic simulation shows that the higher initial costs are not an investment that pays off with a higher return in later years. Indeed, these front-loaded costs slow economic growth with higher inflation and higher interest rates, which overwhelm the benefits the proposal hoped to gain in later years.

The bill’s taxes, penalties, and fees on investors and businesses will decrease the amount of investment in the economy. This reduced investment will in turn lead to a decline in productivity, causing the economy to produce $706 billion less worth of goods and services. A smaller economic pie means that workers earn lower wages and salaries. Higher taxes on investment also put upward pressure on interest rates as investors seek to achieve their after-tax desired rate of return.[1]

Lower wages reduce the amount of taxable income that could otherwise have been achieved. This will both increase the deficit and grow the total debt—which in turn puts upward pressure on interest rates and crowds out some savings that could have gone to new productive business investments.

Higher interest rates mean that more American tax dollars will go toward paying the interest on the federal debt rather than paying down the principal. Simulations using dynamic analysis estimate that the government would spend an average $23 billion more per year on interest rate payments over the 2010–2020 year window than it would without the PPACA.

Once the government begins paying for health insurance for individuals through subsidies and bringing people into the government insurance programs in the latter half of the decade, this growing debt will balloon. By the end of the 10 years, debt held by the public will be $753 billion higher than it otherwise would have been.

Higher Premiums

In its analysis of the PPACA, the CBO estimates that health insurance premiums for the non-group market will increase significantly, primarily because of a mandate requiring plans to provide a more generous level of coverage than most do now while virtually eliminating the option of catastrophic coverage. In addition, significantly more individuals will face these higher premiums after the creation of the insurance exchanges begins crowding out the employer-sponsored market and after the individual mandate begins prodding the currently uninsured into buying coverage.[2] The result will be an overall increase in the absolute amount of health spending on premiums (that is, private and public).

The premium and medical spending increases put upward pressure on prices. Thus nominal spending (i.e., the actual dollars spent) that the government anticipates in subsides and payments for increased Medicaid enrollees will actually purchase a lower level of medical care. In turn, the government will have to spend more money to provide adequate insurance to individuals or further ration payments to medical providers. This unanticipated increase in spending further widens the deficit that contributes to the federal debt.

The dynamic analysis shows that the new law will result in 670,000 net job losses, many of which would be in the health services industry. These losses represent both cutbacks in jobs and jobs that are simply never created as talented individuals choose to specialize in other industries that are not subject to the government’s payment squeezes. At the same time, newly enrolled and subsidized individuals on the government’s rolls will cause the demand for health services to increase. In turn, prices will rise even more than anticipated, and greater rationing will occur. Thus, this legislation will fail to meet its primary goal: to enable greater access to health care while “bending the cost curve downward.”

Taxing the Job Creators

The PPACA also increases the Medicare hospital insurance component of the payroll tax on wages and self-employment income in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 joint) by 0.9 percentage points—a provision that will raise around $18 billion per year. This “tax on the rich,” however, will actually affect small businesses as well as salary earners, because the hospital insurance tax applies to “flow-through income” of those small businesses that file taxes as individuals. In fact, almost $16 billion out the total $18 billion of revenue will come from filers with at least some flow-through income. Small businesses at all earning levels that file individually—even those already facing losses—will see a tax increase.

In a time when firms are making hard decisions about layoffs, successful businesses could face tax increases of thousands of dollars. The overall average tax increase faced by small businesses filing individually would be about $600.

Repeal Is Needed

Mandates add rigidities to the economy, which in turn reduce the ability of the economy to make the needed adjustments to ever-changing economic conditions. These inflexibilities reduce economic growth by stifling the new innovations that a dynamic population demands, resulting in slower economic growth, longer periods of unemployment, and reduced opportunities for savings and investment used to build nest eggs for households.

A combination of mandates and taxes will not reduce health care costs or ensure that all citizens have good access to health care. Instead, mandates will burden already struggling businesses with new costs and punish individuals for not having high-paying jobs. New taxes will burden small businesses as well as large ones and force many firms to make layoffs, further hurting workers. The best way to prevent further erosion of the economy is to repeal the new law.[/quote

Your little article is dire…VERY MAGA OF YOU.

This was a projection that has been PROVEN WRONG BY REALITY.

MAGA H**ES REALITY.

THAT IS ANOTHER WAY TO SPOT A MAGA A MILE AWAY.

BIRDMAN

🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

No, I am not, there is only one circumstance in which an a******n may be necessary.

dbirch

Anyone who has to say over, and over, and over again that they are telling the t***h and the rest of us are lying is probably not telling the t***h. Why do you ask people to show the numbers when you don't accept them anyway and you take the smallest numbers of words and throw out the rest to make what you believe is the point.

TJKMO Loc: Bicycle Heaven

I don’t make anything up.
Your little ad hoc stories are really irrelevant to the national picture.
Good for your relatives.
They are liberal because they are HIGHLY EDUCATED.
TRUMP SAID HE LOVED UNEDUCATED PEOPLE.

See the difference?
Maybe your relatives can set you straight.
However, You seem to love being a hostile uninformed MAGA.
You trash PEOPLE in your every statement…. Not ideas.
Then play the VICTIM when you get treated as you treat others.

Will you change?

POOR THING.