What will right-wingers with no health insurance do now?

You accuse me with not knowing how Obamacare works and then you bring this nonsense? Wow!

Look... first of all, Obamacare is not insurance. There is no such thing as "Obamacare insurance". So what your saying is that they pay this under the insurance that their Insurance corporation provides. Obamacare is a law that regulates insurance. So if you are trying to say that this is caused by Obamacare, you need to show that this was not possible before the ACA. And then you need to quote the article (with references) that creates this problem.

If your argument is that this is caused by Obamacare because a very questionable clinic (or whatever this is) just... says.... that it's Obamacare.... you have quite a bit to learn.

By regulating it, of course. For example, not allowing insurance companies to use more than 20% of their revenue on administrative costs and profits, increasing the number of people insured, which cuts costs and increases profits for insurance companies, ranting subsidies to families who couldn't afford insurance, .... and many other ways. But that is a whole different discussion. Let's focus on your claim that this problem you describe was created by Obamacare.

Are claim after claim that you can't substantiate the only thing we can expect from you?

I'm going to omit the rest of this nonsense. Let's see if you can substantiate at lease one of your many claims. Show that the situation on your example was created by Obamacare. That should be easy. Siimply quote the article of the ACA that makes this possible.

Or, if you can't substantiate, you can retract. Which is perfectly fine. I've done it several times in the past. Substantiating your claim or retracting it are the only two honest ways to proceed. Any other option, such as ignoring the question, or attempting to change the subject, .... would bring into question how serious a poster you are.

On this forum, a poster that just... says things.... that they can't substantiate, is very much frowned upon. At least by serious posters. Though we do have some posters that we have learned not to take seriously. Because they themselves don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

No, it's not! It's a discussion that is "closed" to all topics except the one on the OP. Anything else is called "derailing the thread". And you might want to look it up in the forum rules, because I believe it is frowned upon by staff.

As for the rest.. if you can quote somebody on what you call "the left" who said that tax cuts for the middle class are wrong, go ahead and quote them. And then we may be able to ask them (assuming they are middle class) if they accepted the tax cuts and ask them why. Otherwise.... not interested.

 

Well, right wingers are usually self sufficient and have insurance. The big question is what will all the lefties do? They are the ones waiting for a government teat to suckle.

 

I responded to a comment which you made. It was clearly misleading and I pointed it out.

 

Then she needs to decrease here MAGI. She's only $45 away. A professional on the matter is likely to help her figure out what to do. Maybe all she needs to do is take a $45 pay cut... I don't know. But a professional is sure to help.

But that's not the main part. I showed that she would probably be paying around $409 for a silver plan. That's the part that you ignored on the last post. Let's see if you mention it here.

Happy to see you think I'm an expert, but I'm not. I only know what I research (read my sig). And researching what happens after the 400% level is irrelevant to this conversation. And since you are obviously not doing any research whatsoever to support any of your claims, I don't want to waste time. There are too many interesting topics being discussed on this forum, and worth the time to research. So if you're not interested in research, why waste my time?

I didn't call you anything. I'm calling what you said "pathetic". Calling you pathetic would be against forum rules.

In any case, at this point you haven't commented on the fact that, even with no subsidies, this lady would be paying around $400 to $500 for a Silver plan. Nowhere near $1000. The lady in your $5600 example already makes $500 more than the one in the $50.000 example. Basically, compared to the first, she gets free healthcare. And that's with so many worst-case-scenario assumptions that.... I can't even begin to count.

Look. Obamacare is not meant to fix the cost of housing in NYC or BOS. It's meant to give access to healthcare to more people. Not even everybody... just more people than had access before the ACA. You seem to be looking for some ... metaphysical... piece of legislation that fixes all the country's problems. The ACA was a legislation that was necessary and has been extremely beneficial to the large majority of Americans.... But if you keep moving the goalposts enough as you have been trying to do, you might be able to find a handful of hypothetical "ladies" who weren't benefited. My question is so what?

Now... let's see you justify your original example.

Oh really? Ok. That was easy. My work is done!

Don't forget to retract the statements you were unable to justify, though. Lest, your credibility remains in question

 

409 a month is more than youd pay for just going to the doctor and paying out of pocket.

There in lies the problem. It is more expensive than just being uninsured and paying your doctor.

 

Yep! That's what you would pay for hospitalization, treatment, medications.... if you ever, for example, you are in a car accident, or get cancer, or... are infected with coronavirus. $409 should be more than enough, right?

The concept of "insurance" obviously eludes you.

 

Obama Care was based on lies, that's what.

 

OK, a few points in summary, but first, I must respond to your "so what?" about older moderate-earning citizens who can no longer afford health insurance as a result of Obamacare. Are you saying that it is more important for low-income people to get health insurance (paid for by other people) than it is for self-sufficient people, previously able to buy their own insurance, continue to do so and not be priced out of the market? Apparently, you didn't think "so what?" about the low-income people who couldn't buy insurance. Why a "so what"? about responsible, self-supporting moderate earners who now can't afford it?

Now then:

1) You have argued that posters who disagree with you on Obamacare, such as myself, are simply ill-informed about Obamacare while you believe yourself to be so much more knowledgeable. But then, you revealed that you were unaware of one of the key failures of the Obamacare scheme - the subsidy cliff. That you would be unaware of such a front-and-center aspect of Obamacare tells me you really do not know as much as you believe yourself to know. You also seem to be under the impression that people that live in high COLA's get subsidies based on that, when in fact the subsidy level is set at the federal level. These are key and obvious points about Obamacare which you either are unaware of or just wrong.

2) You are focused on the fact that millions of people who didn't have insurance pre-Obamacare now have it, but really, we still have 30 million without insurance. IOW, we dropped from around 44 million to 30 million, which you could argue is still an improvement. Dive into the numbers, though, and you will find that 71% of the newly insured under Obamacare was the result of expanded Medicaid - just a complete freebie. Now I know progressives think that the solution to any problem is to just give it free to people, so you might consider that a success: Obamacare was able to give millions more health insurance, albeit paid for with Other People's Money.

3) And these other people? I can't believe that you haven't heard of the millions of people who were suffocating under the astronomical costs of Obamacare, which is the consequence of giving it free to others. A woman in her 60s earning $50,000 (MAGI) will pay close to $1,000 a month for a bronze plan, with a deductible of $6,000. Forcing moderate earners to pay as much as $18,000 a year for medical costs, and then calling them "insured," is misleading at best. What people with bronze plans have are what were formerly called major-medical, otherwise known as catastrophic. The difference is that with Obamacare, a catastrophic plan (which should be cheap) is now the cost of a premier-level plan. SOMEBODY has to pay for all the free insurance for other people!

4) Obama lied. We did not get to keep our doctor, keep our plan, nor see our premiums go down. That's another goalpost you and other progressives have moved. Whereas originally it was "premiums will go down around $2500," now it's "OK, premiums kept going up under Obamacare, but they were going up before." Obama was so focused on shifting money around so that low-income could get health insurance completely free, that he relied on the "idiocy of the American voter" (per Dr. Gruber, the architect of Obamacare) to ram in through - and before those in Congress could even read or digest it.

Finally, I responded to you not so much to correct your erroneous assumptions, but another poster DM'd me an asked that I keep going because he was learning a lot from me. Also, I have attached an article provides additional information (and sources the 71% figure I listed in item # above.)

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/the-truth-behind-obamacare-numbers

 

Yup! Keep your doctor, keep your plan, and see premiums drop by an average of $2500. Instead, it's find a new doctor, be forced onto an overpriced plan that covers things you will never need (like pediatric dentistry or maternity), and watch the premiums not only continue to rise, but the deductible to triple.

 

The reality of insurance eludes you. Health insurance is not health care.. lors of people cannot afford to go to the doctor because they pay excessive amounts for insurance and have nothing left over for doctors bills that come insurance or no insurance.

 

They hammer everyone for their full deductible using skinny networks like I described.

 

What the f... hell are you talking about?

I meant what I said: if she doesn't get subsidies, it doesn't matter because she can probably get a very good plan for a bit more than $400, as I have proven with references... You stated it was $1000 and provided no references.

Pay attention!

Speaking of "attention". You also incorrectly attribute a quote to me. It may have been accidental, but I haven't seen your apology or correction since I pointed it out to you

The rest of your post is nonsense! It is obvious that you are uniformed about Obamacare. My posts shows you didn't even know about MAGI. I didn't say anything about anybody else specifically. And I only noted it because you kept projecting it on me.

And the rest is such crap it's ... unbelievable. I mean... a Trump supporter actually complaining about Obama lying? You do realize you support a President who spews an average of 40 lies a day, don't you?

My God!

 

It is in this country. It won't be anymore when a sane administration that acknowledges what the rest of the world already knows: that healthcare is a human right, then it won't be anymore.

 

It wasn't when Obama was president either. Unless you paid for a very expensive plan, the deductible put routine visits to the doctor out of reach.

 

She cannot get a very good plan for $400, not if she's 60 she can't. Your "references" were from some private site, and unreliable. The only reference that counts is from health.gov, and they do not advertise their rates in "off-enrollment" season. That's what I can't provide it. Ask me again in the fall, and I'll print a screen shot of MY options, which last year started at $982/month for a bare-bones bronze plan. (To get a plan similar to what I had pre-Obamacare, I would have had to pay $1500/month, which is completely unaffordable.)

And of course I knew about MAGI. You on the other hand seem to think that MAGI is the same as net income, and thus used her take-home pay as a the figure to qualify her for a subsidy. (And you knew nothing about the subsidy cliff, either.)

You are in clear denial about how bad Obamacare has been for moderate earners who had previously been able to afford insurance. I noticed you didn't answer my question: You said "so what"? if some people making $50K can't afford insurance, and I asked if you had this same "so what"? attitude toward lower-income. But apparently not. That's because leftists have one focus: to give free stuff to low-income people even at the expense of middle-income. Otherwise, you wouldn't have such a callous attitude toward middle-class people who can't afford insurance now that Obamacare has driven up the prices. (And I see this all the time. You also callously said: "so buy a better plan." Why don't you just tell low-income people to "buy a plan." Because....I know the answer.....liberals have sympathy toward lower-income people who cannot afford a good plan and disdain for middle-income people who cannot afford a good plan.

And what about my other information: that Obamacare still left nearly 30 million people uninsured, and the "newly insured" were, for the most part (71%), the beneficiaries of expanded Medicaid. THAT's the success? "Hey, we were able to give millions of low-income people FREE insurance by driving up insurance costs on middle-income people to such an extent that now THEY can't afford it."

It is obvious that you are uninformed about Obamacare, and are rather hostile to someone who supports Trump. You didn't know about the subsidy cliff (a key design failure), and mistake MAGI as net pay (as in "take-home"), and are oblivious to the fact that plenty of middle-income people are now paying close to $1,000 a month for nearly worthless high-deductible health "insurance."

 

1. No it's not not even in this country having health insurance is not the same as healthcare. Most people pay for insurance and still have no healthcare because insurance companies took all their extra income. Just becauae people had health insurance under Obamacare does not mean they were recieving any care.

Owning a gun is a basic human right. Where is my single payer Ar 15?

 

And you know this because you went to the real Massachusetts Marketplace, entered her information and came up with... drum roll... $1000, of course. Just that you're too.... uhm... shy (yeah, that's it!)... to show it, right?

For reference my information came from the Massachusetts Healthcare Marketplace to which I got to from Healthcare.gov, and it can be verified by going the same route.

But if you prefer to make up some "conspiracy" to fool 60 year old ladies, don't let the facts stop ya.

Ah, of course. It was a coincidence that you "forgot" to mention it on your example at the same time that you "forgot" to account for it when describing the lady's case until I mentioned it.

Anyway.... I don't see your apology for attributing to me a statement that was made by another poster so...

We are on a bad shortage of serious posters on the right. I count only six, but two of those rarely post. I had my hope set on you for a bit there, but.... alas! It was not to be....

Oh well... Thanks anyway.

 

Being insulted, accused, and misrepresented by a liberal who is unfamiliar with the negative consequences of Obamacare is not my idea of fun. I thought perhaps I could teach you something, but alas!.....it was not to be. I'll be elsewhere on the forum, but good luck to you.

 

Read again: I didn't say it was "the same". If that's what you meant, that's pretty absurd.

But if you don't have insurance, you are certainly not receiving healthcare.

Not even close...

 

I didn't have insurance, and got health care, 3 days in the hospital..

Yes guns are a basic human right. Our constitution says so.

 

The government mandate can kiss my ass. I don't have insurance. None, zero, nada. I could be like every worthless liberal who runs to the emergency room with the sniffles....or like every illegal alien (read future democrat voter) and do the same and not pay a dime.

But I'll just pay for it out of pocket...like I always have.

Until then, I'll be putting 7 figures to work in this FAKE NEWS market the left is creating.

 

So we have a shortage of serious posters on the right. Be serious folks. Be like @Golem. He lives by his sig line but makes unsubstantiated, untrue statements like this.

Hmmm. Not so. Sig line malfunction.

When it’s pointed out his unsubstantiated claim is in error we get this.

So I provide this.

And never hear another word except more silly accusations of right wing posters not being serious.

Be serious posters right wing people. Be like progressives and post like the example above. LOL

 

Yes. Golem is being very misleading by posting something from the MA health insurance exchange that shows insurance rates around $400/month. What is NOT showing is the age of the hypothetical customer. Moderate earners in their early 60s will find that they are being charged $1000/month for a bare-bones bronze plan* (which is effectively a catastrophic plan worth a few hundred dollars a month at most). And that is why so many in the middle-income brackets (and who had previously bought insurance in the individual market) have been priced out of insurance.

Yet progressives will deny the harm that Obamacare has caused so many responsible, self-sufficient people, instead rejoicing in that Obamacare has resulted in more low-income people be able to afford insurance. My two main issues with this is:

1) The way lower-income people have been able to "afford" insurance under Obamacare is because it is be given to them free of charge! I posted the article in a previous post that showed that 71% of the newly insured have gotten insurance because of the Medicaid expansion. Saying that they can now "afford" health insurance is quite a stretch: they were GIVEN health insurance!

2) We still have nearly 30 million uninsured in this country (down from slightly over 40 million pre-Obamacare), but these uninsured are now the middle-class who can't afford it. (Unlike lower income, we have to pay for our insurance.) Yet you hear time and time again from progressives this "who cares?" or "so, big deal....buy a better plan" to middle earners, showing absolutely no sympathy for their plight, caused by Obamacare. Do we hear the same lack of sympathy for the lower-income? Do we hear progressives say to them "so....get a job" or something to that effect? NO.

The most irritating thing is that progressives institute a policy that hurts tons of moderate earners (and self-supporting people), because their primary focus is to provide free health care for low-income (and illegals, of course) - and then on top of it DENY just how harmful the policies are. That is because they themselves are largely shielded from the consequences of liberal policies, and therefore can pat themselves on the back by thinking they are so much more generous and moral than those who don't subscribe to their political views.

*As I've stated, the government exchange does not advertise rates until enrollment season. If I'm still around by then, I'll post it. Last year, the cheapest bronze plan for a 62-year-old was $982 a month.

 

Of course there is the emergency room. But people who can afford insurance but use the emergency room as a substitute are the ultimate freeloaders.

Nope...