[kbell]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/01/li...aunch-day/

Now you can sign up for Obamacare, if you can get on the website that is. It sounds like the websites are overloaded. A bit odd they didn't prepare for that. Also there was a leak of sensitive information including Social Security numbers as well.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/14/obamac...z2gWeJ753F

Can the NSA read all of your medical records as well?

[kbell]

Nbc is Obama's cheerleader surprising to see this from them.

[Therapsid]

From the Obamacare website "Healthcare.gov"

If you try applying, you'll see a screen that says the following:

"We have a lot of visitors on the site right now.

Please stay on this page.

We're working to make the experience better, and we don’t want you to lose your place in line. We’ll send you to the login page as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience!"

Only a government website could make a simple online form into a trip to the DMV.

[el mechanico]

WTF is Obama care? The short version...Does it mean I call up and get insurance cheap?

[not_dead_yet]

(10-02-2013 09:59 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  

WTF is Obama care? The short version...Does it mean I call up and get insurance cheap?

LOL. No, they made the cheap insurance illegal.

They invented new insurance plans that include all kinds of coverage that you don't want, which makes them expensive, and then they charge you a fee if you don't carry insurance. Premiums paid by the young, who don't need the insurance, subsidize older people and families.

[Kid Strangelove]

Congress has obviously never tried to play Diablo 3 on release day

[kbell]

They did have a ton of time to get more servers to anticipate the demand better. I'm curious on if doctors can refuse to support the healthcare plan like other private plans. Not all plans pay doctors nicely and often will take money from the doctor.

I did hear one of the cheaper plans was roughly 100+ bucks a month which is pretty high.

[Clyde]

The reason why the plans are high is because everyone is covered now. You are basically substituting the taxes you were paying for people not paying for healthcare in emergency rooms.

As much as people complain about Affordable Healthcare. Insurance or not. If you injure yourself. You are going to run to the Hospital. Illegals are still going to the Hospital. People with conditions that could have been treated early but didn't go because they didn't have insurance or could afford a doctor's visit is still going to the Hospital. Guess who is and does pay for that? Everyone.

So since everyone at some point in their lives will get stick or need healthcare. Even the young, that's why everyone is paying into the system now. It just makes sense.

I'm sure it isn't perfect. But this political pandering which is done in Congress is getting old.

[Screwston]

Does everyone have to get insurance no w? What about the unemployed?

[It_is_my_time]

(10-02-2013 01:08 PM)houston Wrote:  

Does everyone have to get insurance no w? What about the unemployed?

You have to have insurance or you pay tax on your income taxes.

For the first few years, for a single person, the tax is only $95 for not having insurance. But it eventually goes up, and down the road it will probably be as cheap to just get insurance.

[Hencredible Casanova]

If you can't afford insurance, then you get a federal subsidy to help you acquire insurance. If you can afford insurance but choose not to get it, then you will be charged a financial penalty that is 1% of your income, and increases each year and is capped at the fourth year rate if you still don't have insurance.

You also have the option of keeping your insurance with your employer, which is what I am personally doing since I'm happy with it.

If you choose one of the ACA plans, your employer won't contribute to your premiums.

There are countless horror stories about what Americans are experiencing under the status quo (pre-ACA). Hard to see how ACA could possibly be worse. Millions of people who never had insurance will now receive care. And those who already have insurance will still have insurance. Win-win.

What's funny is this was an idea birthed by a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation), successfully tested in a Republican-led state with a governor who was the 2012 Republican Prez nominee, passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President into law. It's already the law of the land. The time for debate about it has long passed.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-02-2013 01:16 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

If you can't afford insurance, then you get a federal subsidy to help you acquire insurance. If you can afford insurance but choose not to get it, then you will be charged a financial penalty that is 1% of your income, and increases each year and is capped at the fourth year rate if you still don't have insurance.

You also have the option of keeping your insurance with your employer, which is what I am personally doing since I'm happy with it.

If you choose one of the ACA plans, your employer won't contribute to your premiums.

There are countless horror stories about what Americans are experiencing under the status quo (pre-ACA). Hard to see how ACA could possibly be worse. Millions of people who never had insurance will now receive care. And those who already have insurance will still have insurance. Win-win.

What's funny is this was an idea birthed by a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation), passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President into law. It's already the law of the land. The time for debate about it has long passed.

It is a disaster, economically and to the healthcare industry. And for young men (I am guessing you are one) being it was passed by the feminist Democratic party, aka the party of the National Organization for Women, it will be worse for you than anyone else.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(10-02-2013 01:19 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:16 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

If you can't afford insurance, then you get a federal subsidy to help you acquire insurance. If you can afford insurance but choose not to get it, then you will be charged a financial penalty that is 1% of your income, and increases each year and is capped at the fourth year rate if you still don't have insurance.

You also have the option of keeping your insurance with your employer, which is what I am personally doing since I'm happy with it.

If you choose one of the ACA plans, your employer won't contribute to your premiums.

There are countless horror stories about what Americans are experiencing under the status quo (pre-ACA). Hard to see how ACA could possibly be worse. Millions of people who never had insurance will now receive care. And those who already have insurance will still have insurance. Win-win.

What's funny is this was an idea birthed by a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation), passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President into law. It's already the law of the land. The time for debate about it has long passed.

It is a disaster, economically and to the healthcare industry. And for young men (I am guessing you are one) being it was passed by the feminist Democratic party, aka the party of the National Organization for Women, it will be worse for you than anyone else.

That's not even remotely a cogent argument. Just an empty statement unguided by empiricism.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-02-2013 01:25 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:19 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:16 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

If you can't afford insurance, then you get a federal subsidy to help you acquire insurance. If you can afford insurance but choose not to get it, then you will be charged a financial penalty that is 1% of your income, and increases each year and is capped at the fourth year rate if you still don't have insurance.

You also have the option of keeping your insurance with your employer, which is what I am personally doing since I'm happy with it.

If you choose one of the ACA plans, your employer won't contribute to your premiums.

There are countless horror stories about what Americans are experiencing under the status quo (pre-ACA). Hard to see how ACA could possibly be worse. Millions of people who never had insurance will now receive care. And those who already have insurance will still have insurance. Win-win.

What's funny is this was an idea birthed by a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation), passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President into law. It's already the law of the land. The time for debate about it has long passed.

It is a disaster, economically and to the healthcare industry. And for young men (I am guessing you are one) being it was passed by the feminist Democratic party, aka the party of the National Organization for Women, it will be worse for you than anyone else.

That's not even remotely a cogent argument. Just an empty statement unguided by empiricism.

Just the facts. Companies keep letting people go and cutting others to less than full time hours to prepare for it. Then salaried employees will be asked to work more and more hours to make up for it.

More and more doctors refusing to deal with it, because it is a 1,200+ page law full of unreal regulations and confusion.

I guess if you think young men having to pay more and more for insurance so single mom's can pay less. And more and more people making less and less money as their hours are cut. And more and more middle class salary workers working longer hours for less money. And men once again being f'ed over by the feminist Democratic party is a "good thing" then you have a "good thing".

[Hencredible Casanova]

(10-02-2013 01:29 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Just the facts. Companies keep letting people go and cutting others to less than full time hours to prepare for it. Then salaried employees will be asked to work more and more hours to make up for it.

More and more doctors refusing to deal with it, because it is a 1,200+ page law full of unreal regulations and confusion.

I guess if you think young men having to pay more and more for insurance so single mom's can pay less. And more and more people making less and less money as their hours are cut. And more and more middle class salary workers working longer hours for less money. And men once again being f'ed over by the feminist Democratic party is a "good thing" then you have a "good thing".

Your empty comment does not even resemble an iota of fact. Where is your data? You are merely offering biased and speculative opinion with no hard data or empiricism for support. That's not value, nor is it fact. Certainly not a cogent presentation to say the least. Pretty embarrassing on your part that you hold such a dogmatic belief about a piece of legislation but can't even articulate it in a logical and convincing fashion. Where did you go to school? I am certain you don't live in DC.

The fact that you have no choice but to contend with is that the ACA is the law of the land. Go figure.

[Aliblahba]

(10-02-2013 09:59 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  

WTF is Obama care? The short version...Does it mean I call up and get insurance cheap?

No but plan on paying out the ass for your employees, or working them all 20 hours a week, then hiring double the staff to cover the rest of the hours. Don't comply and uncle sam will come get you.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-02-2013 01:36 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:29 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:25 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:19 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:16 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

If you can't afford insurance, then you get a federal subsidy to help you acquire insurance. If you can afford insurance but choose not to get it, then you will be charged a financial penalty that is 1% of your income, and increases each year and is capped at the fourth year rate if you still don't have insurance.

You also have the option of keeping your insurance with your employer, which is what I am personally doing since I'm happy with it.

If you choose one of the ACA plans, your employer won't contribute to your premiums.

There are countless horror stories about what Americans are experiencing under the status quo (pre-ACA). Hard to see how ACA could possibly be worse. Millions of people who never had insurance will now receive care. And those who already have insurance will still have insurance. Win-win.

What's funny is this was an idea birthed by a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation), passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President into law. It's already the law of the land. The time for debate about it has long passed.

It is a disaster, economically and to the healthcare industry. And for young men (I am guessing you are one) being it was passed by the feminist Democratic party, aka the party of the National Organization for Women, it will be worse for you than anyone else.

That's not even remotely a cogent argument. Just an empty statement unguided by empiricism.

Just the facts. Companies keep letting people go and cutting others to less than full time hours to prepare for it. Then salaried employees will be asked to work more and more hours to make up for it.

More and more doctors refusing to deal with it, because it is a 1,200+ page law full of unreal regulations and confusion.

I guess if you think young men having to pay more and more for insurance so single mom's can pay less. And more and more people making less and less money as their hours are cut. And more and more middle class salary workers working longer hours for less money. And men once again being f'ed over by the feminist Democratic party is a "good thing" then you have a "good thing".

Your empty comment does not even resemble an iota of fact. Where is your data? You are merely offering biased and speculative opinion with no hard data or empiricism for support. That's not value, nor is it fact. Certainly not a cogent presentation to say the least. Pretty embarrassing on your part that you hold such a dogmatic belief about a piece of legislation but can't even articulate it in a logical and convincing fashion. Where did you go to school? I am certain you don't live in DC.

The fact that you have no choice but to contend with is that the ACA is the law of the land. Go figure.

Do you just not watch the news? Everything I posted is reported on the news over and over (maybe not the main stream media, but the financial channels).

Not sure why someone would be "red pill" then support the feminist Democratic party. This healthcare bill will only hurt the middle class (already doing that), men (raises men's rates a lot more than women's), small and medium sized businesses.

This is pretty much common knowledge, and it is considered okay because it helps women and thus the largest voter block is protected. At least common knowledge to anyone who follows the financial news.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land. So are many other terrible laws and it doesn't make them "good". It is a very blue pill white knight laced bill and a disaster for the young men the likes who post here.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(10-02-2013 01:39 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Do you just not watch the news? Everything I posted is reported on the news over and over (maybe not the main stream media, but the financial channels).

Not sure why someone would be "red pill" then support the feminist Democratic party. This healthcare bill will only hurt the middle class (already doing that), men (raises men's rates a lot more than women's), small and medium sized businesses.

This is pretty much common knowledge, and it is considered okay because it helps women and thus the largest voter block is protected. At least common knowledge to anyone who follows the financial news.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land. So are many other terrible laws and it doesn't make them "good". It is a very blue pill white knight laced bill and a disaster for the young men the likes who post here.

In other words, you have no data. Your education on this legislation is certain TV channels by your own admission. Why am I not surprised? Thanks for nipping this discussion in the bud.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-02-2013 01:43 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:39 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Do you just not watch the news? Everything I posted is reported on the news over and over (maybe not the main stream media, but the financial channels).

Not sure why someone would be "red pill" then support the feminist Democratic party. This healthcare bill will only hurt the middle class (already doing that), men (raises men's rates a lot more than women's), small and medium sized businesses.

This is pretty much common knowledge, and it is considered okay because it helps women and thus the largest voter block is protected. At least common knowledge to anyone who follows the financial news.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land. So are many other terrible laws and it doesn't make them "good". It is a very blue pill white knight laced bill and a disaster for the young men the likes who post here.

In other words, you have no data. Your education on this legislation is certain TV channels by your own admission. Why am I not surprised? Thanks for nipping this discussion in the bud.

The data is all over the place. Company after company cutting workers directly due to it and others cutting hours directly due to it.

Where is your data that this will be good? A 1,200 page bill that takes aim at men and small/medium sized businesses is good to you. So where is your data that it is good? The emotional ploys of poor people getting healthcare at the cost of middle class men?

[Hencredible Casanova]

(10-02-2013 01:47 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The data is all over the place. Company after company cutting workers directly due to it and others cutting hours directly due to it.

Where is your data that this will be good? A 1,200 page bill that takes aim at men and small/medium sized businesses is good to you. So where is your data that it is good? The emotional ploys of poor people getting healthcare at the cost of middle class men?

Why would you even try to have a debate about something that you've only learned about from sensationally biased media coverage that you sought out? You are making pretty strong claims that you know what this legislation will lead to for the US economy and the healthcare industry when, in reality, you are simply regurgitating information.

Have you even read a single page of the 1,200 page bill you keep bringing up? Highly doubtful.

What is your background? What would even give you the gall to make that kind of statement? Do you even have any skin in the game?

Among many of the benefits that we actually do know, the ACA has extended insurance coverage to young adults - through their parents - until the age of 26. This demographic has been left pretty vulnerable as a result of the weak job market. Believe it or not, shit happens to young people. Good to know that if you somehow get bronchitis you can seek care without having to worry about finances if you're unemployed or underemployed.

ACA also makes prescription drugs cheaper for seniors by closing the "donut hole" in medicare. If you don't know what I mean by donut hole, then you really should recuse yourself from even having a discussion about ACA.

ACA also covers preventative health care visits (shots, cancer screenings) without those annoying and significant co-payments.

ACA actually provides tax credits to small businesses to increase coverage to employees and for those working employees that are too poor to afford their employers health care plan, they can sign up for ACA plans at no cost to their employers.

If you're going to make claims about the future with any reasonable degree of certitude, you owe it to yourself and to your audience to cite verifiable support, not just sensational opinion which anyone can glean by watching the same TV channels sans (your) filter.

[It_is_my_time]

Not everything in the ACA is bad. But in 1,200 pages, a bill passed by a feminist president is going to have lots of bad in it.

Thus these companies continue to lay off and cut back on their work force. It isn't "sensationally biased media" reports, it is just what is happening...

https://www.google.com/#q=companies+that...+Obamacare

[Hencredible Casanova]

(10-02-2013 02:17 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Not everything in the ACA is bad. But in 1,200 pages, a bill passed by a feminist president is going to have lots of bad in it.

Thus these companies continue to lay off and cut back on their work force. It isn't "sensationally biased media" reports, it is just what is happening...

https://www.google.com/#q=companies+that...+Obamacare

First TV channels, now lazy Google searches? That's what informs your certainty about how the ACA will play out in the future?

You entered a search term that fielded the kind of "sensationally biased media" reports I alluded to.

I can cite media that counters the same points you're making. What gives? What's telling is that you have not addressed the points I made nor have you answered the questions I posed, yet I responded to your each of yours.

Quote:

Small Businesses Have Seen Increased Hiring As Economy Improves; Employers Show Few Signs Of Reducing Work Force Due To The ACA

USA Today: The Individual Mandate For Businesses To Provide Coverage Has Not Deterred Hiring. According to an August 21 USA Today article, there is no evidence that the ACA has caused small businesses to stop hiring:

The gains are beginning to shift the terms of the debate over the health care law. Under the law, businesses with 50-plus full-time-equivalent workers must offer insurance to people working 30 hours a week beginning in 2015. That mandate, originally slated for 2014, has not deterred hiring as feared, some economists now say.

As more data come in, the law's impact can't be seen in hiring statistics, says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.

"I was expecting to see it. I was looking for it, and it's not there,'' says Zandi, whose firm manages ADP's surveys of overall private-sector job creation. If the Affordable Care Act "were causing a drop, you would see meaningful slowing.'' [USA Today, 8/21/13]

Federal Reserve Bank Of Minneapolis Study: 89 Percent Of Individuals Surveyed Said Their Companies Did Not Plan To Cut Hours For Employees. According to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, of the 205 contacts surveyed, 89 percent reported no plans to cut workers' hours due to the Affordable Care Act:

The survey asked: Has your company or organization shifted to more part-time workers in response to the Affordable Care Act (federal health insurance requirements)?

Only 4 percent said they had shifted to more part-time workers, while another 7 percent said they planned to do so. But 89 percent said they had not made, nor were planning, such a move.[Federal Reserve Bank Of Minneapolis, 3/20/13]

CEPR Study: Only 0.6 Percent Of The Workforce Work Just Below 30 Hour Cutoff. According to a July 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an analysis of the Current Population Survey shows that only 0.6 percent of the workforce is currently working just under the 30 hour cutoff for a full-time employee, suggesting "that employers do not appear to be changing hours in large numbers in response to the sanctions in the ACA." [Center for Economic and Policy Research, July 2013]

Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco Study: Any Effect ACA Has On Reduced Hours For Workers Is "Likely To Be Small." According to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, "most large employers already faced IRS rules" preventing them from denying coverage to full-time workers but haven't reduced workers' hours to avoid paying those costs. The report further notes that once the ACA is fully implemented, "the ultimate increase in the incidence of part-time work [...] is likely to be small, on the order of a 1 to 2 percentage point increase or less." [Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 8/26/13]

The Atlantic: "Much Of What The Cleveland Clinic System Is Doing Follows The Recommendations Of Health-Care Analysts Closely." According to a September 20 story in The Atlantic, the Cleveland Clinic has been "working on reducing costs for years" to be viable but reports it is "still hiring" and is following normal procedures in cutting its budget:

In fact, the "Obamacare is killing jobs" story isn't really accurate. It's not totally false -- the Cleveland Clinic will in fact take in less money because of the law --but it's a more complicated story about changes in medicine. When I reached Sheil on Thursday, she seemed a bit confused by the emphasis on Obamacare in reports. "We've been working on reducing costs for years," she said.

"We felt health-care reform was absolutely necessary," Sheil said. "This is the new normal. This is where hospitals have to focus to be viable in the long run. This is not doomsday for the clinic. We're still growing -- we're still hiring. The hardest thing is when it affects people."

Actually, much of what the Cleveland Clinic system is doing follows the recommendations of health-care analysts closely. For example, it has consolidated closely located neonatal intensive care units, because high volumes tend to lead to better results. It's working to reduce the number of procedures its staff performs, since in the current system "physicians are rewarded to do more, not to do the right thing for the patient," as Sheil put it. And there's a new focus on chronic diseases, which are an increasingly important and costly area for treatment. [The Atlantic, 9/20/13]

[Aliblahba]

The irony of this is amazing. Single white man will have to pay for all this shit, then get turned away for terminal conditions, while fat ass ghetto slugs still come into the ER everyday for runny noses, obesity, diabetes, or all over the OR for triple bypass surgery, stomach stapling, foot removal (diabetes), then go back home and eat some more fucking sugar off of welfare.

At some point when all the middle class men are dead, whose gonna pay? Women? See the irony?

[It_is_my_time]

(10-02-2013 02:38 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

The irony of this is amazing. Single white man will have to pay for all this shit, then get turned away for terminal conditions, while fat ass ghetto slugs still come into the ER everyday for runny noses, obesity, diabetes, or all over the OR for triple bypass surgery, stomach stapling, foot removal (diabetes), then go back home and eat some more fucking sugar off of welfare.

At some point when all the middle class men are dead, whose gonna pay? Women? See the irony?

We are seeing this play out already in Europe. The next step is to let in more immigrants to pull the yoke as the middle class men have either given up or have been run down.

And then this isn't enough, and you have to continue to borrow at crazy rates. Eventually you are cut off from borrowing any further and you end up like Greece.

Except, unlike Greece, there are 300,000,000 guns floating around and I hope to not be here to find out what it is like.

[Aliblahba]

Guns are useless w/out ammo, which is what the gov't is targeting now. In 5 years most people won't have enough to fight back. Maybe the Europeans will take pity and send us over some rocks to throw.