More Proof That Anti-Obamacare States Desperately Need Obamacare

Absolute, utter NONSENSE. Then again, any quick reading of the link you posted can easily demonstrate how silly it was.

 

Where do you get your "facts" from???????

Maryland was one of the first states in the Union to set up exchanges. They set up their first exchange in 2010 to cover people with pre existing conditions.

The folded that into Obamacare early this year.

How do I know? That's where I bought my insurance.

Please turn off Fox Noise and AM radio, and stop thinking that trash like PJMedia, Breitbart, Wingnut Daily, and Daily Caller are "news".

You might learn something.

 

I actually doubt that will happen.

For one, employers get a nice tax break for offering it.

For another, they will have to pay their employees the cost of the premiums.

For a third, companies with more than 50 employees are required by the new law to provide health insurance that mees the ACA standard.

None of the predictions that all you wingnuts have been shouting (and recycling) have panned out. Not one.

Obamacare is the law of the land. And it isn't going away.

It has been very good for me, and for everyone that I know who bought health insurance on the exchanges.

We saved a LOT of money (without subsidies), and we have had no problems with it at all.

I know that's not what you want to hear, but that's the way it is.

 

It doesn't demonstrate how silly it was, because it provides zero evidence.

On the other hand, there is already plenty of evidence that shows that marginal tax rates for low income earners are relatively high for welfare recipients. Instead of the increased financial security of transfer payments, lower income earners find themselves much poorer due to taxes and lost benefits. Hence, the disincentive for welfare recipients to find work.

This has been studied numerous times.

 

My insurance will increase $160 a month come October 1. Since you and your derelict friends obviously couldn't care for yourselves, I'm glad I can help out. I'll pm you my address so you can mail me a nice thank you letter

 

Just a bit of thinking while reading the post I responded to will obviate the need for any more "evidence", tho I did include a link just to back it up.

It may have been studied "numerous times" but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Are you saying that people on welfare and perhaps receiving other forms of assistance have to pay income taxes? if not, what kind(s) of taxes? Links would be helpful.

 

Back to the OP - that anti-Obamacare states really need it:

So, not only are taxpayers in those states (like me) sending money to D.C. for expanded Medicaid, we receive nothing in return. However, we ARE either paying more in local taxes to keep small hospitals in rural areas functioning or watching them close or cut services. We'll also likely pay more for insurance premiums because those health care providers who aren't getting paid have to make it up one way or another.

 

I'm on Medicaid in Florida once I got SSI they put me on that under a good HMO plan I chose, I got into SNAP and its not like opt out states don't offer help if one is disabled, infirm or sick (have cancer or are on dialysis) here you can get into Medicaid if an adult. I'm scared they will expand it right now my HMO uses money to get doctors and provider medical centers on board. Its a neat trick if they take 2.5% of assigned Medicaid patients they get 2.5% more money for all the other patients not on Medicaid and if they opt out in their annual contract they get 2.5% less the numbers get people to take patients which is a small pool if spread out over many providers. Right now with a modest pool of people it works well if they add 1 million people here it will hurt the system and people like me.

Medicaid is good for those that need it and can work but is a welfare program no use pretending its not I get medical care for no out of pocket costs how is that not welfare?

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? It's always good for a laugh to listen to a liberal rail against big business and corporations and then in the same breath support policies that only benefit big businesses and corporations. There are millions of people that are self employed or are in small business provided small group plans. These people are going to see their small group plans disappear due to non compliance with the ACA, and their premiums are going to increase 89% on average. Please Democrats, keep campaigning on how states need Obamacare. It's main purpose is to sucker punch young healthy (oblivious) voters. You know, the people that voted for Obama.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/...s-owner-only-firms-into-unfamiliar-territory/

Or

http://articles.dailypress.com/2014...noncompliant-plans-health-plans-bobby-pearson

 

I'm not giving your comment any credence since I have no idea where your insurance comes from or what it covers.

We got ours in the exchanges, which is what our broker reccomended. We get no subsidies, in spite of your continued attempts to claim otherwise.

Of course, if your insurance is company provided, and your share of the premium just went up $160 a month, too bad. Your boss made that decision for you. That's the system you right wingers keep defending. So enjoy it.

If we pay less because the group is now larger, well, that hasn't anything to do with derelicts. That's how insurance actually works, a fact that seem to elude the talk radio types here.

 

obama care is going to kill us all.

 

The exchanges spread risk across more people, but they also greatly increase the risk. This RAISES the cost for everyone. Small group plans are tailored to specific risk groups. This means they can be much less expensive, but since they don't cover all the risk groups mandated by the ACA they are not allowed to exist. It's not mathematically possible to reduce the cost of coverage by forcing everyone in the group to have the same coverage. The whole idea is to force people who pose less risk to pay for people who pose more risk by covering the people who pose less risk. This means the low risk person has to cover the other person, AND themselves. This makes it more expensive than simply covering the other person. Haven't you heard about the retirees complaining that they have to carry maternity coverage?

I expect that your tune will change when the whole thing collapses and you'll be demanding single payer to fix the problem by 2018.

 

I doubt it.

Much of what you say is patently ridiculous. Small group insurance and individual insurance has always been the most expensive in the marketplace precisely BECAUSE of what you claim are advantages.

Because individuals can't spread risks, and because small groups are rated strictly on the characteristics of that particular population, costs are far higher, and risk isn't spread.

Not only is it mathematically possible to reduce the cost of coverage by forcing everyone in the group to have the same or similar coverage, that's the fundamental premise on which the concept of insurance rests.

As for changing my tune. I haven't had to so far. Every prediction and lie offered by the right wing noise machine regarding the impending disaster of health insurace reform has not come true.

Nor will this one.