More Obamacare fuckups

[Atlanteax]

The problem I have with that is getting rid of an entitlement of any type is virtually impossible, it makes curing cancer seem simple by comparison.

Which was the Democrat' game plan when they forced it thru Congress.

I wonder why more is not being mentioned of how Obamacare was ruled to be a tax.

[Back]

Which was the Democrat' game plan when they forced it thru Congress.

I wonder why more is not being mentioned of how Obamacare was ruled to be a tax.

You can thank Justice John Roberts for that.

[Warriorbird]

Which was the Democrat' game plan when they forced it thru Congress.

I wonder why more is not being mentioned of how Obamacare was ruled to be a tax.

I'm somehow doubting it, given the Supreme Court. If it were true though, it'd be up there with the Republicans' clever plan to complain about anything that's passed by Obama, even Republican legislation.

[Jarvan]

What about the bill makes you think prices will go down as a whole? Sure maybe some people will end up paying less but overall there is nothing in the bill to indicate costs will go down overall.

Projected AVERAGE costs are 16% less then they expected. At the same time, they also expected costs to be about 150-175% more then what they were. So.. In Governmentese the costs have went down.

[Back]

Projected AVERAGE costs are 16% less then they expected. At the same time, they also expected costs to be about 150-175% more then what they were. So.. In Governmentese the costs have went down.

Do you have a report that cites this?

[Jarvan]

Do you have a report that cites this?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2...iums.cfm#_ftn5

This states the 16% lower rate then they expected.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2...ums_update.cfm

This one is where in 2009 they expected a 54% increase in rates.

So... we expect a 54% increase, and it's 16% less then the 54% (not 38% mind you, 16% of 54%)

I prob used the wrong % in my statement, should have said they expected costs to be 50-75% more then what they were. But if you change more to of, then it still works.

[Jarvan]

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2...iums.cfm#_ftn5

This states the 16% lower rate then they expected.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2...ums_update.cfm

This one is where in 2009 they expected a 54% increase in rates.

So... we expect a 54% increase, and it's 16% less then the 54% (not 38% mind you, 16% of 54%)

I prob used the wrong % in my statement, should have said they expected costs to be 50-75% more then what they were. But if you change more to of, then it still works.

Also, I would like to point out, that costs have gone down on the AVERAGE, but not really. What they did is say that Old people and sick people can no longer be charged more. And now young people and healthy people can no longer be charged less. So if you are say 28 and perfectly healthy, your rates almost doubled. if you are 61 and dying of 14 diseases, your rates dropped a shit ton.

Does anyone find the simple flaw in their logic?

Basically, they want everyone to pay the same rates really... HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK when it comes to insurance.

That's like if the government told car insurance companies, that they can't look at driving history or age (and the fact that very young, and very old drivers tend to have more accidents) and instead, everyone gets the same rate. So if I never had an accident, I pay the same amount as the guy that has 23 fender benders a year. Yeah.. I can TOTALLY see how that is fair.

Our elected leaders are a bunch of fucking morons. Both sides, but in this case, the Dems take the cake.

[Atlanteax]

Seems like overzealousness as for treating everyone as being exactly equal. Which rhey are when you are a government and each individual is reduced to their SS#.

[Tgo01]

Turn the government back on!!

Or else!!

[Jarvan]

Turn the government back on!!

Or else!!

Or keep it off, and see if the sky literally falls.

Actually, I am still waiting for the roaming bands of bandits that Reid promised.