"if you like your doctor we don't give a ****."

JoseCuervo said:
Agreed, it hasn't failed in the task of getting more people to take responsibility for getting insurance.
Click to expand...

It hasn't failed in any task it was not intended to accomplish.

As for the 1-pager, (or even a 4-pager), could you point me to the link for Carly Fiorinas proposed tax code that she trumpets in GOP debates?
Click to expand...

If there is one, yes.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Agreed, it hasn't failed in the task of getting more people to take responsibility for getting insurance.


As for the 1-pager, (or even a 4-pager), could you point me to the link for Carly Fiorinas proposed tax code that she trumpets in GOP debates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Is it fair to force Bill Gates to buy health insurance?
 
JoseCuervo said:
Sure. He is just as certainly going to use the hospitals as anyone else.
Click to expand...

He doesn't NEED insurance to cover the bill. He just writes a check on the way out.

Admit it, rummy: the REAL reason for instituting medical insurance under threat of federal incarceration is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Just spreadin' it around some....
 
paflyer said:
He doesn't NEED insurance to cover the bill. He just writes a check on the way out.



Admit it, rummy: the REAL reason for instituting medical insurance under threat of federal incarceration is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Just spreadin' it around some....
Click to expand...



But, since he can do math and understands probabilities, he would likely come to the same conclusion millions of others do and purchase health insurance.

I have never known "super rich" people who didn't carry health insurance, and many other types of insurance.
 
JoseCuervo said:
I have never known "super rich" people who didn't carry health insurance, and many other types of insurance.
Click to expand...

It may well be possible that you dont know them.

In my experience, the bill for the 'super rich' doesn't carry a diagnosis code and is mailed to their business address. So while they may have insurance, they dont seem to use it (probably to maintain privacy of their personal information).
 
JoseCuervo said:
But, since he can do math and understands probabilities, he would likely come to the same conclusion millions of others do and purchase health insurance.

I have never known "super rich" people who didn't carry health insurance, and many other types of insurance.
Click to expand...

If Gates had the misfortune to hit a million bucks in medical costs, the limit on most policies, that would represent 1E6/5E10 = 0.002 PERCENT of his present net worth.

Why should he be REQUIRED to pay for insurance that he does not need, ever?

Why should ANY of us be REQUIRED to pay for insurance we do not WANT?
 
weilke said:
It may well be possible that you dont know them.

In my experience, the bill for the 'super rich' doesn't carry a diagnosis code and is mailed to their business address. So while they may have insurance, they dont seem to use it (probably to maintain privacy of their personal information).
Click to expand...

'Super rich' probably have Dr Allenby on their staff.

'Filthy rich' can call Dr Hank and write a check.

'Merely rich' (those making over 250K, according to His Holiness, Pope O) can afford to pay out of pocket for most issues.
 
JoseCuervo said:
But, since he can do math and understands probabilities, he would likely come to the same conclusion millions of others do and purchase health insurance.
Click to expand...

Those who can do math understood Obamacare would not work as it was sold.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Can you show your math?
Click to expand...

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
 
JoseCuervo said:
Can you show your math?
Click to expand...

I can CLEARLY see I didn't get a 2500 discount off the health care costs Barack Hussian Obama promised.....

IN fact, It has cost me 8 times that amount.. Just for Premiums.. If I get sick, throw in another 15 grand out of pocket......


When the speaker of the house shouts to the crowds that you NEED to pass it to see whats in it... You know we are getting fuked.......:mad2::mad2::mad2:..:mad:
 
N801BH said:
I can CLEARLY see I didn't get a 2500 discount off the health care costs Barack Hussian Obama promised.....
Click to expand...

I can still only envision two scenarios for that repeated claim of saving "the typical American family" $2,500/ yr.

1) He was naive, parroting what some think tank or advisor or strategist told him without even delving into how such might be possible, or...

2) He was intentionally misleading. Read: "lying", but I hate to use that word.

Any other scenarios I might be missing?

I'd guess #1, but neither option is very flattering.
 
Last edited:
NHWannabe said:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Click to expand...

In fewer words, "spreading the wealth around."
 
FastEddieB said:
I can still only envision two scenarios for that repeated claim of saving "the typical American family" $2,500/ yr.

1) He was naive, parroting what some think tank or advisor or strategist told him without even delving into how such might be possible, or...

2) He was intentionally misleading. Read: "lying", but I hate to use that word.

Any other scenarios I might be missing?

I'd guess #1, but neither option is very flattering.
Click to expand...

It was both.
 
N801BH said:
I can CLEARLY see I didn't get a 2500 discount off the health care costs Barack Hussian Obama promised.....

IN fact, It has cost me 8 times that amount.. Just for Premiums.. If I get sick, throw in another 15 grand out of pocket......
Click to expand...

you don't understand, as much as your premiums have gone up, they would have gone up an additional $2500 if it weren't for the bliss called obamacare.

Yeah, that's the story.

 
EppyGA said:
You go first, since the plan is failing with so many private exchanges going broke. How many are still uninsured?
Click to expand...


That was due to a Marco Rubio maneuver last year. Not the original bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NHWannabe said:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Click to expand...



That is not math.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EppyGA said:
So Rubio was able to change it all by himself? He's one powerful SOB :eek:
Click to expand...


OpEd in Forbes, written by a Rubio advisor:

It was this latter problem that aroused the ire of Sen. Rubio. The Congressional Budget Office had assumed that Obamacare’s risk corridors would be deficit-neutral. But if the majority of insurers underpriced their products, believing that they were due for a taxpayer-financed cushion, the risk corridors could end up costing billions of dollars.

Rubio was the first to publicly raise concerns

Staffers at the Senate Budget Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee had been sniffing around Obamacare’s risk corridors in the spring and summer of 2013. But Sen. Rubio was the first to publicly raise concerns about the issue. In a November 2013 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Rubio wrote, “While risk corridors can protect taxpayers when they are budget-neutral, ObamaCare’s risk corridors are designed in such an open-ended manner that the president’s action now exposes taxpayers to a bailout of the health-insurance industry if and when the law fails.” Simultaneously, Rubio announced that he was introducing a bill, “The Obamacare Bailout Prevention Act,” to repeal Obamacare’s risk corridors.

Rubio’s hell-raising about Obamacare’s risk corridors was well covered at the time. No one disputes that Rubio was the first to raise concerns about risk corridors, nor that he was the first to introduce legislation to address their fiscal problems.
Click to expand...


Read it or ignore it as you wish.
 
JoseCuervo said:
OpEd in Forbes, written by a Rubio advisor:




Read it or ignore it as you wish.
Click to expand...

Read it. So Rubio became concerned that if/when O'Care bit the dust the government would be on the hook for the bailout. Can you imagine someone worrying about the government needing to bail out an industry and plunging the country into even bigger debt. That man should be elected Senator!!

Now back to my point, if legislation was drafted and passed it had to be signed to go into law. Who would have to sign that in our Constitutional Republic? This is not a trick question.
 
EppyGA said:
Read it. So Rubio became concerned that if/when O'Care bit the dust the government would be on the hook for the bailout. Can you imagine someone worrying about the government needing to bail out an industry and plunging the country into even bigger debt. That man should be elected Senator!!

Now back to my point, if legislation was drafted and passed it had to be signed to go into law. Who would have to sign that in our Constitutional Republic? This is not a trick question.
Click to expand...

 
EppyGA said:
Read it. So Rubio became concerned that if/when O'Care bit the dust the government would be on the hook for the bailout. Can you imagine someone worrying about the government needing to bail out an industry and plunging the country into even bigger debt. That man should be elected Senator!!

Now back to my point, if legislation was drafted and passed it had to be signed to go into law. Who would have to sign that in our Constitutional Republic? This is not a trick question.
Click to expand...


Ahhh...... more concerned with the politics than with the law and the results.

Got it.

Keep tilting at them windmills, and maybe you will get one, Mr. Quixote.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Ahhh...... more concerned with the politics than with the law and the results.

Got it.

Keep tilting at them windmills, and maybe you will get one, Mr. Quixote.
Click to expand...

Actually he's keeping in line with what the Unicorn King said when the law passed...would not add anything to the deficit...

Just like that $2500 premium reduction, the $1 Billion for a website (healthcare.gov) and the $2.6 Billion for the Co-ops...

It's as if someone said Mark Zuckerberg was going to give away 10% of his stock and to qualify you just needed to post that status on Facebook...Unicorns I say, Unicorns
 
JoseCuervo said:
OpEd in Forbes, written by a Rubio advisor:

Read it or ignore it as you wish.
Click to expand...

So because he pointed out that the coops were unsustainable, he is somehow responsible for their demise. Yeah, shoot the messenger.

If the dems wanted to fund startup deficits for the coops, they could have written it into the law. But that would have pushed the up front price tag above the magic 1 trillion number. They banked on a funding mechanism introduced to pay startup cost for medicare advantage plans to pick up the tab.
 
weilke said:
So because he pointed out that the coops were unsustainable, he is somehow responsible for their demise. Yeah, shoot the messenger.

If the dems wanted to fund startup deficits for the coops, they could have written it into the law. But that would have pushed the up front price tag above the magic 1 trillion number. They banked on a funding mechanism introduced to pay startup cost for medicare advantage plans to pick up the tab.
Click to expand...


He introduced legislation to kill the coops instead of bail them out.

It was his choice, as the experienced legislator, cocaine cartel funded presidential candidate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoseCuervo said:
He introduced legislation to kill the coops instead of bail them out.

It was his choice, as the experienced legislator, cocaine cartel funded presidential candidate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why would you want to "BAIL" out a well thought out bill..:dunno:.....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
JoseCuervo said:
He introduced legislation to kill the coops instead of bail them out.

It was his choice, as the experienced legislator, cocaine cartel funded presidential candidate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

$2.6 Billion wasn't enough? You mean the risk corridor didn't work...

Someone call Captain Renault...

The co-ops were supposed to have provided competition to keep rates low...central planning never works.
 
JoseCuervo said:
He introduced legislation to kill the coops instead of bail them out.
Click to expand...

He didn't kill them. They were already dead.

They were dead the moment state regulators (with pressure from the feds) approved made-up actuarial data to justify rate structures that seemed cheaper than the commercial carriers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top