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

I assume your non-answer insistence means that you are one of those that said that they would pay for their own health expenses, but are now willing to have those of us who pay for healthcare pay for your tests.

Duly noted.

This is how right wingers who are so eager to criticize the poor who need aid and call them "freeloaders", but when they see the opportunity to make taxpayers take care of their expenses (which they stated they would pay) they'll grab the opportunity with both hands.

Thanks for participating...

 

Did you accept the tax reduction. The left wingers opposed the tax reduction. Isn't that the same? Or can you rationalize that also?

 

First of all, I wasn't talking about you. Second... you don't have to go out to mingle with people.

Whatever gave you the idea that you even could get tested before you had any symptoms?

However, you might be illustrating why healthcare needs to be universal and has to be paid by everybody. It might not apply in this instance, but you seem willing to put your ideology before public health. I mean, if somebody wants to get you tested, it's not because they want to steal your bodily fluids. It's because there is a health crisis that warrants it.

 

Of course it's not the same. I never said I wouldn't accept a tax reduction. But right wingers did say they would pay for their own healthcare costs.

 

But that wasn't what I described. You are completely misinterpreting it in order to hide just how useless Obamacare can be. I said, and it remains true, that in some cases the "discounted rate" that one must pay with insurance is HIGHER than what one would pay if he or she did not have insurance at all! My point was that it Obamacare left us with such poor insurance, albeit one that carries an expensive premium, that results in one paying more for a service than if he didn't buy insurance at all. Now, isn't that crazy? In effect, the person who buys insurance is penalized with a higher price for the medical care than the "cash" customer!

 

What? You are claiming that a woman a 60-year-old woman earning $50,000 will get subsidies? Not true. You complain that others don't understand Obamacare, and you clearly are not aware of the subsidy cliff. Anyone who earns $50,000, in any state in the country, will not get a subsidy. The figure is set at a federal level.

And thus I can't trust anything you say. You just don't understand subsidies, or the cliff.

 

People on the left accept a tax cut even though they did not believe there should be a tax cut. I, and I assume most right wingers, accept benefits given by the government even though they do not believe the government should be providing that particular benefit.

According to your logic, if one person on the right says something ( or gets misquoted), that binds us all to the same belief ( or misquote). Maybe it is that way on the left, but it does not work that way on the right.

 

Golem, in my last post I included everything you asked for. Did you read the links? If you won’t take the word of one of the most premier scientists in the world on testing in my state, then there is no hope for you. You are clearly a science denier.

The link you sent is fabricated, distorted information from a journalist. Go watch the testimony it’s based on. Universal testing is a made up term by the journalist.

I’m getting weary of trying to discuss science with you when you are a science denier.

Your posts at this point are mildly amusing because it’s kind of funny to watch someone not care about being wrong about almost everything they say. But that’s about it. I will continue to point out your errors because I think it’s important people have correct information on this virus. But I will not take you seriously because you have been shown your gross errors and don’t care. You deny making statements you are on record of making. If truth matters that little to you, I have no interest in debate with you. Going forward my attention to your errors will only be as a public service to other readers so they are not led astray by your anti science rhetoric. This is too serious of a subject and I feel it’s my duty to expose your errors that may cost someone their life in the future.

 

You said the price they quoted without insurance was $340, but the lady who came in was charged $99. That's what it sounded to me. In any case, that's not what's important. What's important is your claim that this was part of Obamacare

"Can be"? Well... yeah.... Obamacare "can be" useless if you want to have your own yacht and cruise around the world.... "can be" is meaningless. If you are trying to say that Obamacare is not the solution to all our problems... well have you even counted the number of times that I said that Obamacare was just a "band-aid"? Of course it's not the solution to everything. All it did was stop the total collapse of a system that was about to go under because of increasing runaway costs. And, at the same time, stop some of the abuses of the insurance corporations.

It most definitely is not the complete solution. Not even close. The solution to all our healthcare problems will have to start with getting rid of the part of the system that receives most of the profits, and adds absolutely nothing to the healthcare system: Insurance Corporations. And after that, many other things will need to be fixed, of course.

If you are honestly concerned about our healthcare system, you can be sure of one thing: Trump is not going to fix it. He has worked for three years to make the system worse.

 

Yes!!! If she takes $3500 with her, even without any other deductions, that means here net income is $42000. That's well within the limit to get subsidies.

It's pathetic when somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about claims that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Obamacare uses, not what you make, but a modified income level called MAGI (Modified Adjusted Gross Income). Somebody who makes $50K and takes home only $3500 per month is getting $8000 taken out of their pay check per year. That means that their MAGI is more likely than not much less than the limit for subsidy (which is actually estimated at $49,960) And if their MAGI were, for some weird reason exactly $50K, all they would need to do is take out an IRA or HSA or.... even a $45 pay cut per year, to make it fall within the subsidy. That would put them at 400% of the poverty level. At that level, her maximum contribution is 9.78% of her income. Or about under $4900. About $409 per month.

I don't know the particular situation of this lady. But if she goes to an insurance professional she will get a great plan for somewhere around that figure. NOT $1000, as you claimed.

And I don't know what happens if you're just a tiny bit above the 400% level. But I'm sure a good insurance expert would surprise anybody who thinks that they can't afford Obamacare, only because they heard it on their wingnut media

But even without all that.. I posted what she would pay with no subsidy! Why did you ignore it?

What you did is the classic strawman argument.

 

I believe there should always be a tax cuts for the middle class. Because they make the economy healthy. But that's not the point. You on the right said that you would pay for your healthcare. What made you change your mind?

You are obviously trying to avoid answering by using smokescreen after smokescreen. I think I just need to ignore your next post, if it's nothing but another smokescreen. There are too many interesting debates going on to waste too much time on this.

 

Of course not! What in the world gave you the idea that I'd be interested in reading the home page of the Two Rivers Health Department?

This is how a serious debate works. And this is based on the Forum Rules: You state your point, if demonstrating your point requires a quote by a scientist, then you show it, explain the relevance.... and then you include a link in case somebody wants to verify or expand on what they were referring to.

Links are referrences. They should not be used to make the point for you. You make your own point. And use links as references.

That's not only the way this forum works. That's how all forums work.

If you want to try again, go for it.

 

I said I would pay for it if my insurance did not pay for it. I would also accept it as a government benefit because my tax money paid for that benefit. No ambiguity there.

You accepted a tax cut even though the left opposed the cut.

 

Meh. You deny science. One of my links was to quotes of one of the premier scientists on this subject. You are done Golem.

You’ve yet to substantiate ANYTHING you have claimed successfully.

I’ll just keep laughing along with everyone else at your sig line.

 

Look at the dates, all AFTER March 2010.

 

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

ask for the government to cover it... they don't see the irony in that

 

Trump said everyone Will be covered in his campaign, guess he lied

what Obama was saying is you could keep the private plan or choose the public option

just like before ObamaCare, your employer can change your insurance at will with private care

 

So, you do have insurance. Then the question was not for you. And much time was wasted.

More smoke screens....

First of all, I'm not "the left". And it's curious how most right-wingers think that what they call "the left" is like them in that they fall in line behind a single position no matter how idiotic that position may be. Unlike the right-wing base, our base is capable of independent thought. And exercise it every day. That's why our leaders have to agree with us, and not the other way around, like it is typical on the right. Second of all, nobody on the left (of any consequence) has opposed tax cuts for the middle class. What most of us have opposed is the fact that billionaires and big corporations (who don't need tax cuts, and whose tax cuts do little to benefit the economy), got huge tax cuts, while the middle class (who stimulate the economy every time they get any financial benefit) got a few crumbs. Third, neither I nor anybody on the left, that I know of, said that they wouldn't take tax cuts. While many on the right have said that they would pay for their own healthcare costs.

 

No - that isn't what I said. (It might be what you want to hear because for some reason you won't admit what a disaster Obamacare is.) What I said was that the "full" price (that nobody ever pays) was listed at $340; and that people with Obamacare insurance had to pay $130, and people who didn't buy insurance at all got off with paying $99. IOW, people who pay high premiums for expensive Obamacare are then "rewarded" (sarcasm) by having to pay more than uninsured people.

As far as it being part of Obamacare, yes....it is a loophole that Obama allowed. Fortunately, Trump (upon whom you like to blame everything) fixed it (it was a "gag clause") and now I get a choice between paying the insurance price or the cash price, whichever is cheaper. (I personally have saved hundreds on my prescription as a result of this change that Trump made; I am no longer "required" to go through insurance and can pay the "cash customer" price.)

Yes, can be. That's because I have discovered that in some instances I actually am charged less for a medical treatment because I bought insurance. As it should be. But then there are cases, and I linked to an article that described many of them, in which responsible people who bought insurance have to pay more (!!) for a medical service than people who didn't bother to buy insurance at all. That should NEVER happen, and that is a fault of Obamacare that allowed that.

And your claim that he stopped a system that was about to go under due to increasing runaway costs? How did he stop that?? Now we have middle-income people so overwhelmed with the exorbitant cost of nearly worthless insurance that they have to go without entirely! All Obama did was make sure lower-income people get free medical care, and he didn't care that it would drive up costs on middle-income people.

Finally, I know you believe you know how Obamacare works (and are debating with ignorant Republicans), but things you have said tell me you do not. You said that a 60-year-old woman earning $50K and living in Boston would get a subsidy, and she would NOT. You seem to think that people who live in high COLAs get subsidies at higher levels, when in fact the subsidy cliff is $49,960 (for 2020) regardless of where you live. Before we continue to debate, I suggest you review how Obamacare work.

P.S. On a positive note, I figured out how to use the quotes.


[/QUOTE]

 

This is a open discussion. The discussion is not limited to ourselves. In fact, it has been said that the discussion should not be about ourselves.

I will go through it one more time.

All of us who pay taxes, pay for handouts. I pay taxes and I pay for handouts. I do not necessarily agree with all the handouts. However, I would not fault someone for taking a handout providing they are eligible. If I am eligible for a government benefit, I will take it. In fact there are benefits from the VA that I believe I should be getting, that I am not getting because they have made it virtually impossible to prove.

There were a number of people on the left who repeatedly said the tax cuts were wrong. In fact, we had long discussions on the tax cuts. I have no idea whether you actually opposed the tax cuts other than your words. However, it would have been stupid not to accept the tax cut. Just like it would be stupid on my part not to accept a benefit providing I am eligible.

 

Which shows you why having a great case to make is not enough. You also need to have the ability to make it. It's a pity that you didn't.

Your "premier scientists" are not here for me to question their conclusions (if I needed to question them). And "argument from authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam) is a logical fallacy. Hopefully now you learned why it is the forum rules require you, not your links, to make your own points.

BTW, quotes are not science. Even quotes from scientists (see, for example, Clarke's First Law). Looks like you need to first learn what science is.

Better luck next time...

 

Now you are basically calling me pathetic, accusing me of not understanding Obamacare, when you must twist numbers around to make your point. I AM talking about someone with an MAGI of $50K! She will not get subsidies.[/QUOTE]

Now you're trying to show how she could get under $50K, with an IRA contribution. In other words, Obama allowed a scheme by which people earning $50K can do intentionally lower than MAGI and save $10,000 a year in premiums! So you are admitting that Obama designed such a piece of crap that people can game it, get $10,000 worth of subsidies, and have someone earning slightly more get stuff with paying the full amount. What about a lady earning $56,000 a year, and living in New York? That's pretty bare bones - maybe a studio apartment - and yet she is a few thousand over and therefore cannot manipulate her MAGI to get under the subsidy cliff. Thus, the person earning $50K (who can game the system) ends up with a big government subsidy and is in better shape than if she earned $56K! She will be BETTER OFF UNDER OBAMACARE turning down any raise! (That's how bad this scheme was designed!)[/QUOTE]

You don't know what happens if you're a tiny bit above the 400% level? How could you not know?? You just called me pathetic for not knowing Obamacare, and you don't know that there is a CLIFF?? If you go $1 dollar over, you lose the entire subsidy. And the subsidy could be $800 a month!

Because I don't know where you got your numbers. From some private website? The only one that matters if the official gov site, and if you had gone on there during the enrollment point, you would have found that a woman around 60, with an income (MAGI) of $50,000 would have paid around $980 for a bare-bones bronze plan.
-----------
I'm finished debating you. I'm starting to learn the players here, and it is clear that you are NOT familiar with all the details of Obamacare (you didn't know there was a subsidy cliff, for example), and then claiming people who disagree with you are the ignorant ones. It really gets my gruff when people who are NOT suffering under the consequences of Obamacare downplay how awful it has made things for moderate earners buying their own plans in the individual market. Obama decimated the individual marketplace - and that was by design. It was his intention to destroy it, and then build it up again with single-payer. Classic Alinsky.

 

Sure thing. Have a good day. LOL.

 

What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote?