Obamacare & Government Shutdowns

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

It will be when they start demanding treatment be refused for the over 70.

Um. Sure, thats really going to happen.

Anyway they're most welcome to exercise their democratic rights and vote for the party that will repeal such a overreaching law then arent they?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

And whats your alternative anyway? High deductibles and lower premiums like before? Seriously?

NEWSFLASH: Skyrocketing premiums and high deductibles might just be in our future anyway, even under ObamaCare… SHOCK, HORROR!

ObamaCare hinges on young adults signing up for health insurance. They need to purchase health insurance to help offset the high costs of terminally sick and elderly patients who utilize the majority of healthcare in the US. 1% of people account for 22% of all healthcare costs, and 5% account for 50% of all healthcare costs. Without the young signing up, ObamaCare as designed would be a huge failure. Given the fact that penalties are simply the greater of $95 or 1% of income, do you really and honestly think they're going to rush out and spend $300 per month when they feel they don’t need it or it isn’t worth the cost? Then again death panels might just save ObamaCare if the young avoid healthcare like the plague.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

NEWSFLASH: Skyrocketing premiums and high deductibles might just be in our future anyway, even under ObamaCare… SHOCK, HORROR! .

The Insurance plans are available now for you to browse. How about giving us some examples instead of this feigned outrage nonsense?

https://www.healthcare.gov/

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Insurance plans are available now for you to browse. How about giving us some examples instead of this feigned outrage nonsense?

https://www.healthcare.gov/

So you want me to give you premium prices now if the young don't sign up for healthcare as planned. Wait... let me go get my crystal ball.

Paleface

@Amerika

From reading your previous posts you seem pretty convinced that young people must sign up for Obamacare to work but yet you also seem convinced they won't.

How can you be so sure on this?

Also the Obamacare website crashed today due to the demand. Is that not a sign that people are interested?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

...the high costs of terminally sick and elderly patients who utilize the majority of healthcare in the US. 1% of people account for 22% of all healthcare costs, and 5% account for 50% of all healthcare costs.

Specifically what is the GOP health care solution for this growing segment of the American population? What is the Republican Tea Party solution?

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

@Amerika

From reading your previous posts you seem pretty convinced that young people must sign up for Obamacare to work but yet you also seem convinced they won't.

How can you be so sure on this?

Also the Obamacare website crashed today due to the demand. Is that not a sign that people are interested?

Simple… Human nature. Young and healthy adults today spend an average of $854 a year on health care. ObamaCare requires them to buy insurance policies at around $5,800 a year or pay a minimal fine. The ObamaCare mandate forces the young to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies to provide for the sick and elderly. They know they are being required to indirectly provide services that will be received by somebody else. The penalties are negligible and lets face it -- likely unenforceable.

Yup the site crashed. It crashed on me. Almost all small businesses (under 50 employees) will most likely get out of the business of providing healthcare for employees. They will send them to the exchange and give them money either through a pre-tax HRA or directly into payroll, with the employee providing monthly healthcare bills to show they are purchasing insurance. Many employees of small business are already being told they will need to get health care on the exchange starting in 2014 (that’s what I’m doing) and are looking to see what the cost will be.

Ponster

Paleface wrote: »

Also the Obamacare website crashed today due to the demand.

2.8 Million visits

https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=Simas44

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Um. Sure, thats really going to happen.

Anyway they're most welcome to exercise their democratic rights and vote for the party that will repeal such a overreaching law then arent they?

It already happens. Once Obamacare kicks in, you can expect it to happen even more.

Paleface

@Amerika

Ok so now I see why you do not like Obamacare. You are a small business owner and are concerned that this will cost you.

In truth you don't really know that if its a good or a bad idea. But you are believing your GOP politicians as you think they are right.

You are just afraid of the unknown as I alluded to in one of my original posts.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Specifically what is the GOP health care solution for this growing segment of the American population? What is the Republican Tea Party solution?

Neither has a specific plan at the current time. ObamaCare is the law of the land, but the GOP wants to scrap it, utilize the good portions from ObamaCare and incorporate their own ideas to come up with a bipartisan working solution to all segments of health care.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Neither has a specific plan at the current time. ObamaCare is the law of the land, but the GOP wants to scrap it, utilize the good portions from ObamaCare and incorporate their own ideas to come up with a bipartisan working solution to all segments of health care.

Would the GOP (and its Tea Party faction) agree with most, if not all of the terms and conditions of RomneyCare as their health care solution for Americans?

joseph brand

Here's the Republican's list of demands.

GOP Wishlist:
A one-year delay of Obamacare;
Approval of the Keystone pipeline;
Expanded offshore drilling;
Increases in military spending;
Deeper cuts to domestic programs;
Repealing parts of Obamacare.

More dirty, tar sand oil and other dirty fossil fuels. More weapons. No surprises there.
Less health insurance availability. Insurance which is vital to those who live near any chemical plants, spewing out carcinogens and other nasty chemicals. It's almost as if there's a connection here.

These don't seem like the demands of their voters, but the demands put on them from wealthy donors and corporations. I want to mention the Koch brothers, but some might label me a conspiracy theorist.

Wishlist taken from here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm989d7FjD0

Americans by 72% Oppose Shutdown Tied to Health Care Cuts.

In a rejection of congressional Republicans’ strategy, Americans overwhelmingly oppose undermining President Barack Obama’s health-care law by shutting down the federal government or resisting an increase in the nation’s debt limit, according to a poll released today.
By 72 percent to 22 percent, Americans oppose Congress “shutting down major activities of the federal government” as a way to stop the Affordable Care Act from going into effect, the national survey from Quinnipiac University found.

By 64 percent to 27 percent, voters don’t want Congress to block an increase in the nation’s $16.7 trillion federal borrowing limit as a way to thwart implementation of the health-care law, which Obama signed into law in 2010 with a goal of insuring millions of Americans, known as “Obamacare.”

Aren't the GOP acting like that boy who brings his ball home, ruining the whole match, just because nobody let him score? This cannot be good for their image. Not to mention that Obamacare is not affected by this shutdown.

joseph brand

Paleface wrote: »

@Amerika

Ok so now I see why you do not like Obamacare. You are a small business owner and are concerned that this will cost you.

In truth you don't really know that if its a good or a bad idea. But you are believing your GOP politicians as you think they are right.

You are just afraid of the unknown as I alluded to in one of my original posts.

This is a big part of it. Have you seen the anti-Obamacare ads in the US? Nothing of substance, no facts, just a creepy version of Uncle Sam. Scaremongering does work. Here's a link to some anti-American propaganda posters from North Korea. (I'm not comparing the Tea Party and the Koch bros to North Korea, since they've already been likened to the Taliban)

President Obama on Thursday took aim at the creators behind the ad, Generation Opportunity, and its financial ties to deep-pocketed conservatives, Charles and David Koch.
“Some of the Tea Party’s biggest donors, some of the wealthiest men in America, are funding a cynical ad campaign trying to convince young people not to buy health care at all,” Obama said. “I mean think about it: These are billionaires several times over—you know they’ve got good health care.”

"Don't trust the government, trust us." The Koch brothers. And why not? They always smile in their photos, and they're very white. :rolleyes:

"At the National Institutes of Health, nearly three-quarters of the staff was furloughed. One result: director Francis Collins said about 200 patients who otherwise would be admitted to the NIH Clinical Center into clinical trials each week will be turned away. This includes about 30 children, most of them cancer patients, he said."

It's crazy that load of numpties in Washington can **** up peoples lives so much.:mad:

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

It already happens. Once Obamacare kicks in, you can expect it to happen even more.

No it doesn't. Theres no evidence of that at all. Republicans are more unpopular than theyve been in years and they lost the last election by a landslide.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Neither has a specific plan at the current time.

Their "plan" is to obstruct any reforms that might empower the less well off.

Having the workforce less dependant on jobs for their healthcare is scaring the crap out of them.

Paleface

joseph brand wrote: »

This is a big part of it. Have you seen the anti-Obamacare ads in the US? Nothing of substance, no facts, just a creepy version of Uncle Sam. Scaremongering does work. Here's a link to some anti-American propaganda posters from North Korea. (I'm not comparing the Tea Party and the Koch bros to North Korea, since they've already been likened to the Taliban)



"Don't trust the government, trust us." The Koch brothers. And why not? They always smile in their photos, and they're very white. :rolleyes:

Yes I've seen that ad and its pure scaremongering! The fact that its paid for by the Koch brothers should tell anyone with independent thought that they are just pushing their own agenda through fear and misinformation.

goz83

Demanding more military spending and more drilling. I mean, come on. That just screams of corporate greed going to any lengths to get their slimy hands on more money. In the mean time, they destroy the world as we know it.

I visit the states next week and the holiday wasn't cheap and neither is my spending budget. This shut down will no doubt have a negative impact on my trip and many other tourists no doubt.

From an outsiders view, these republicans and specifically the puppets of the tea party are actively seeking to save their own bacon come election time and their bonus pay from the shady billionaires.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Would the GOP (and its Tea Party faction) agree with most, if not all of the terms and conditions of RomneyCare as their health care solution for Americans?

No they wouldn’t. And the Tea Party would definitely be against the expanded intrusion into our private lives by the individual mandate. Actually, if my side of the political isle had no choice but to pick between these two evils, they would go for ObamaCare, as it is more conservative because it puts a greater emphasis on controlling costs.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

@Amerika

Ok so now I see why you do not like Obamacare. You are a small business owner and are concerned that this will cost you.

In truth you don't really know that if its a good or a bad idea. But you are believing your GOP politicians as you think they are right.

You are just afraid of the unknown as I alluded to in one of my original posts.

No, irregardless of its many flaws and greater intrusions into our daily lives, the biggest concern I have is it’s cost to the American people, primarily with the subsidies. Not some unknown. It will add trillions to our deficit, which will have to come due at some point. Does anybody really believe we won’t be hit with massive tax increases across the board to pay for this monstrosity, as we can't keep borrowing? Don't we already have to borrow just to pay the interest on our already borrowed out of control deficit spending? And I’m guessing we won’t hear much about the need for those tax increases until the day after a republican president takes office, and then it will be pushed by the democrats and the media in great urgency.

nagilum2

I thought it would be illustrative to write my experience out. I am a small business owner (partner of a very small software consultancy) in the US. As part of this, I have had an insurance policy for myself, wife, and two daughters for the past year at a cost of approximately $850/mo (including medical and dental).

I received an email from our provider based upon implications of the so called "Affordable" Care Act (here in the US we love to name things as their opposites in Orwellian fashion).

The email stated that across the board, small businesses could expect an large rise in health insurance premiums based upon the new law. We had three options:

1. Renew our existing plan early, which we could do at *only* a 27% increase over our existing plan
2. Switch to another plan early, with similar increase over last year, but with a rate increase much less than what the rate would be if Obamacare comes into full effect.
3. Let it ride and see if anything is changed with Obamacare. They advised us that if some provisions of it were delayed, we might do better than the 27% increase, but that if it went through as it is presently, the rates may double.

Ultimately, we were left with 3 bad options, all of which greatly increased our costs. We went ahead and elected to take option 1 because we didn't want to risk letting it ride and having our rates double if ACA comes into full effect without modifications. But next year, we'll be facing a doubling of our insurance premiums. We're a fledgling company just getting started and I will also say that this has affected our thought process regarding adding additional hires.

Now, for my opinion:
I don't know enough to say how this law will affect things in the broader economy, but this law is a total disaster for small businesses. There are good ways to implement government health care. I have done work in other countries and I think done correctly, a good government health insurance system can be a competitive advantage.

But in the US, our politicians chose to let special interest groups, health insurance and pharma company lobbyists write the law and enrich themselves and their cronies. Then the congress exempted themselves and many of their cronies from the law. The law does nothing to actual control costs. Rather, it creates monopolies that one now must participate in under threat of government legal enforcement. There's a reason that the day after this law was passed the health industry stocks skyrocketed.

Amerika

nagilum2 wrote: »

I thought it would be illustrative to write my experience out. I am a small business owner (partner of a very small software consultancy) in the US. As part of this, I have had an insurance policy for myself, wife, and two daughters for the past year at a cost of approximately $850/mo (including medical and dental).

I received an email from our provider based upon implications of the so called "Affordable" Care Act (here in the US we love to name things as their opposites in Orwellian fashion).

The email stated that across the board, small businesses could expect an large rise in health insurance premiums based upon the new law. We had three options:

1. Renew our existing plan early, which we could do at *only* a 27% increase over our existing plan
2. Switch to another plan early, with similar increase over last year, but with a rate increase much less than what the rate would be if Obamacare comes into full effect.
3. Let it ride and see if anything is changed with Obamacare. They advised us that if some provisions of it were delayed, we might do better than the 27% increase, but that if it went through as it is presently, the rates may double.

Ultimately, we were left with 3 bad options, all of which greatly increased our costs. We went ahead and elected to take option 1 because we didn't want to risk letting it ride and having our rates double if ACA comes into full effect without modifications. But next year, we'll be facing a doubling of our insurance premiums. We're a fledgling company just getting started and I will also say that this has affected our thought process regarding adding additional hires.

Now, for my opinion:
I don't know enough to say how this law will affect things in the broader economy, but this law is a total disaster for small businesses. There are good ways to implement government health care. I have done work in other countries and I think done correctly, a good government health insurance system can be a competitive advantage.

But in the US, our politicians chose to let special interest groups, health insurance and pharma company lobbyists write the law and enrich themselves and their cronies. Then the congress exempted themselves and many of their cronies from the law. The law does nothing to actual control costs. Rather, it creates monopolies that one now must participate in under threat of government legal enforcement. There's a reason that the day after this law was passed the health industry stocks skyrocketed.

My condolences. I believe even if you signed, you can cancel – or just don’t pay them and they will cancel you. Do you have an insurance agency at your disposal dealing with multiple health care companies? They already have spreadsheets with the insurance providers in your state and know the different provider rates for the bronze, silver, gold and platinum policies. Contact them and meet with them to discuss your options.

(Someone told me this: In the Exchange... Nobody is a smoker! (even if you are a smoker and get tested, under AHA a non-smoker is limited to 4 cigarettes a week (I believe), so if you test positive... "Yeah I had one over the weekend." Unless you like paying 50% higher premiums that is.)

Amerika

A recent Gallup poll showed 69% of the 18 to 29 age bracket demographic (the age group expected to foot the bill for the sick and elderly, and the group needed to make ObamaCare work) were unaware they were required to get health insurance by the beginning of 2014. Call me skeptical, but there’s not much hope in them purchasing insurance when they don’t even know they need to purchase insurance.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164696/two-three-uninsured-americans-plan-buy-insurance.aspx

Paleface

The main reason I see that this act will result in a rise in premiums is because of greedy insurance companies not competing with each other.

If your insurer tells you that your premium is going to go up should you not try a competitor? Isn't that what the exchanges are designed for? To create competition?

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

The main reason I see that this act will result in a rise in premiums is because of greedy insurance companies not competing with each other.

If your insurer tells you that your premium is going to go up should you not try a competitor? Isn't that what the exchanges are designed for? To create competition?

You don’t think employers haven't tried year after year after year to find affordable health care insurance for their employees from different providers? Unfortunately when insurance companies aren’t allowed to compete across state lines, and you're located on one of the prime hotspots in the country for medical malpractice lawsuits, it kinda makes things rather difficult in the competition arena. But that changes with ObamaCare... right?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

No they wouldn’t. And the Tea Party would definitely be against the expanded intrusion into our private lives by the individual mandate.

Then why did they slip in the provision to deny contraceptive coverage to women?

That seems incredibly intrusive and no business for the politicians to be singling out women right?

InTheTrees

joseph brand wrote: »

Here's the Republican's list of demands.

You missed the added provision that allows healthcare providers to deny contraceptive coverage to women on "moral" (???) grounds.

It gets lost in this debacle.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

You don’t think employers haven't tried year after year after year to find affordable health care insurance for their employees from different providers?

Anybody who has worked long term in the USA knows about the yearly "benefits" meetings where your Insurance company reps detail the rises in premiums and the reduction of benefits.

Its been going on for twenty years and gradually getting worse and worse. While republicans continue to obstruct reform. Healthcare reform has been a major issue for many many years.

Obamacare is the result. ANd very welcome to the majority of americans.

InTheTrees

nagilum2 wrote: »

I thought it would be illustrative to write my experience out. I am a small business owner (partner of a very small software consultancy) in the US. As part of this, I have had an insurance policy for myself, wife, and two daughters for the past year at a cost of approximately $850/mo (including medical and dental).

So you're self employed with a wife and 2 kids.

Have you been to Healthcare.gov, put in your details and seen what your new premiums will be? Instead of relying on email from your current insurance company.

That would be an important part of this story wouldnt it? Without that this story is just opinion right?

InTheTrees

nagilum2 wrote: »

Now, for my opinion:
I don't know enough to say how this law will affect things in the broader economy, but this law is a total disaster for small businesses.

Huh?

But why? Nothing you've detailed illustrates why it would be bad for small business. All you've written is that your current insurance policy will have to be changed.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Then why did they slip in the provision to deny contraceptive coverage to women?

That seems incredibly intrusive and no business for the politicians to be singling out women right?

Oh what a tangled web we weave…

The GOP feels that the federal government should not require individuals, charities, or businesses to buy insurance coverage that includes items or services against which they have deeply held moral or religious objections.

Actually, I’m rather surprised they didn't go after the “abortion premium mandate” (unless I missed it) which requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion – a whopping $1 abortion surcharge.

nagilum2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh?

But why? Nothing you've detailed illustrates why it would be bad for small business. All you've written is that your current insurance policy will have to be changed.

Well, it's my opinion based on my direct experience. Isn't the fact that insurance rates are expected to double (and will at a minimum go up by several hundred $$ / month / employee) enough?

Beyond my direct experience, the letter from the healthcare plan broker we use had the following direct quote:

I know that this increase may seem high but, unfortunately, it is indicative of the increases we have been seeing in the industry for groups of your size

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

A recent Gallup poll showed 69% of the 18 to 29 age bracket demographic (the age group expected to foot the bill for the sick and elderly, and the group needed to make ObamaCare work) were unaware they were required to get health insurance by the beginning of 2014.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164696/two-three-uninsured-americans-plan-buy-insurance.aspx

In reviewing the Gallup poll you cited, it appears that you may have misinterpreted the numbers? The question asked 18 to 29 year olds: "Were you aware of this before now, or not? %Yes = 69; %No = 31;" i.e., 69% were aware.

Furthermore, caution should be exercised when referring to Gallup poll results, given that they called a clear Romney win for months with their tracking polls before the November 2012 presidential election.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

So you're self employed with a wife and 2 kids.

Have you been to Healthcare.gov, put in your details and seen what your new premiums will be? Instead of relying on email from your current insurance company.

That would be an important part of this story wouldnt it? Without that this story is just opinion right?

I am not putting any details onto that site.

So the NSA is sticking its nose into everyone's lives and now the White House is forcing everyone to submit all their info.

Goodbye privacy. Thank you dumbass Obama voters. Well done.

nagilum2

InTheTrees wrote: »

So you're self employed with a wife and 2 kids.

Have you been to Healthcare.gov, put in your details and seen what your new premiums will be? Instead of relying on email from your current insurance company.

That would be an important part of this story wouldnt it? Without that this story is just opinion right?

It would be an important part of the story, but there is no price discovery yet:

1. The site is down for my state, this the information has been inaccessible to me. Poor implementation and/or no elastic load balancing?

2. The onus was on us to accept or decline prior to the opening of the exchanges, preventing any true comparisons even if the exchanges had been up.

3. Based on the anecdotal information from Manhattan Institute for Policy Research HERE, I can expect an approximately 50% rise based on my plan if I were to go with the exchanges. It's anecdotal but the uncertainty is horrible (as I mentioned the insurance broker themselves were saying it could double). Not knowing your cost basis as a small business owner makes planning things very difficult. Hence the decision to take the 27% rise.

4. Even if I were to get a quote, you'd have to also compare what the plans offer. Other anecdotal stories abound that these exchange plans have only 1/4 or so of the doctors in them, meaning it's very unlikely that you'd actually be able to keep your physician if you switched to one of them. One must also take into account deductibles, out of state coverage, etc.

clairefontaine

Any ideas on how this will create a doctor shortage and increase waiting times?

nagilum2

Black Swan wrote: »

In reviewing the Gallup poll you cited, it appears that you may have misinterpreted the numbers? The question asked 18 to 29 year olds: "Were you aware of this before now, or not? %Yes = 69; %No = 31;" i.e., 69% were aware.

Furthermore, caution should be exercised when referring to Gallup poll results, given that they called a clear Romney win for months with their tracking polls before the November 2012 presidential election.

Agree that opinion polls are more or less useless in this case. Disagree on sniping Gallup based on their last major result. Case in point - Rasmussen was the most accurate poll in 2008, but near middle-bottom in 2012. Any one given poll will always fluctuate over time. Further, an opinion poll of this sort follows a very different methodology than a general election presidential poll.

nagilum2

clairefontaine wrote: »

Any ideas on how this will create a doctor shortage and increase waiting times?

It's unknown at this time. There is of course a lot of prediction that with the limited number of doctors available in many exchange plans, there will be shortages and greater waiting times. But until we see data, it's hard to say how significant they will be.

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

I am not putting any details onto that site.

So the NSA is sticking its nose into everyone's lives and now the White House is forcing everyone to submit all their info.

Goodbye privacy. Thank you dumbass Obama voters. Well done.

Privacy? The IRS already knows.

You pay taxes dont you?

Anyway if you get insurance through your job you dont have to deal with the exchanges.

Black Swan

nagilum2 wrote: »

Disagree on sniping Gallup based on their last major result.

This is not "sniping," rather it's based on their non-predictive performance. Gallup predicted a Romney win in their tracking polls for months before the November 2012 elections. Tracking means that they took several polls leading up to the election, and the trending observed in these many Gallup polls were inaccurate by generally favouring a Romney win in 2012.

Furthermore, when 23 major polling organisations had been ranked for their predictive performance in the 2008 elections 4 years before, Gallup was 4th from the bottom, once again demonstrating that they performed poorly twice in a row during the 2 presidential/general elections (not mid-terms).

nagilum2 wrote: »

Any one given poll will always fluctuate over time.

Please explain what you are talking about here.

There is some error and variation whenever a poll is taken, which is measured by their confidence levels and confidence intervals. When only one poll is taken, it's cross-sectional (i.e, one moment in time) and caution should be exercised when interpreting the results because of potential variation. But when several polls are taken over time as with Gallup's tracking polls (i.e., longitudinal design) leading up to the 2008 and 2012 elections, the variation in confidence intervals between several polls should be accounted for by their predictive model (which failed somewhat in 2008 and greatly in 2012 for Gallup).

nagilum2 wrote: »

Further, an opinion poll of this sort follows a very different methodology than a general election presidential poll.

Once again, what are you talking about here?

The major methodological problem with the 2008 and 2012 Gallup polling occurred as a result of their flawed sampling methods. Their samples were overrepresented by land line telephone respondents, and underrepresented mobile phone respondents. This flawed sampling heavily impacted on their 2012 election polls because there were over 26% of eligible voters that had mobile phones only and no land lines. This was further confounded by caller blocking, call screening, voice mail, "No Call List," etc., biasing the Gallup samples in favour of land line phone respondents, and those who typically answer most calls without filtering.

This was not due to random variation between polls that's measured by confidence intervals; rather Gallup's poor predictive performance in 2008 and 2012 was due to consistently flawed sampling methods. A flawed sample produces flawed results. In research we call this GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

nagilum2

Polls to determine who will vote for who are largely based on voter models - this is mainly where Gallup erred. The question itself is not ambiguous.

Not so with an opinion poll such as this, where how the question is phrased can greatly affect the result, in addition to who is asked.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

In reviewing the Gallup poll you cited, it appears that you may have misinterpreted the numbers? The question asked 18 to 29 year olds: "Were you aware of this before now, or not? %Yes = 69; %No = 31;" i.e., 69% were aware.

Furthermore, caution should be exercised when referring to Gallup poll results, given that they called a clear Romney win for months with their tracking polls before the November 2012 presidential election.

Relooking at the data from Gallup, I believe you’re right and I was wrong. But I still believe far too many younger Americans will decide on not purchasing comprehensive health insurance under the dictates of ObamaCare, and just pay the fine, as they will contend it to be an unwise personal financial decision. And without the young paying for the sick and old, "affordable" will be an even bigger joke than it is right now. And as for Gallup, yeah the screwed up royally last year, but they are probably still the best indicators, based on polls, we have.

joseph brand

Tell me if I'm wrong.

There are a few GOP/ Tea Party supporters here, complaining about the rise in costs with this unholy Obamacare. Fair enough.

But when asked to log onto the site and get a quote, they have come up with a myriad of excuses. I'm expecting someone to say; "my dog ate the router/ laptop" at this stage. It looks very disingenuous, dodging questions like that.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here:

What could be more reasonable than losing an election by 5 million votes then demanding the president to govern as they would, or else shut the government down and not pay our bills?

Bill Maher

jman0war

The fact is the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed and signed into law by the President, not to mention upheld after a Supreme Court challenge; fully in accordance with the US Constitution.

What the Republicans are doing today is an attempt to obstruct the law coming into force, by non-constitutional means.
It's a affront to american democracy.

The Affordable Healthcare Act is the law of the land regardless of present antics.

Throwing toys out of the pram isn't going to stop it.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

Relooking at the data from Gallup, I believe you’re right and I was wrong. But I still believe far too many younger Americans will decide on not purchasing comprehensive health insurance under the dictates of ObamaCare, and just pay the fine, as they will contend it to be an unwise personal financial decision. And without the young paying for the sick and old, "affordable" will be an even bigger joke than it is right now. And as for Gallup, yeah the screwed up royally last year, but they are probably still the best indicators, based on polls, we have.

Nothing like admitting you were wrong (caught out) and following it up with a . . but!

How much is this fine, and isn't it better to pay for the insurance and have health cover, than to pay a fine and end up with nothing?


On a side note, Gallup, and anyone else predicting a Romney landslide, did Obama a favour, while looking, for all intents and purposes, like they were pro GOP. This would have put the wind up Obama's supporters, whilst giving (unwarranted) peace of mind to GOP supporters.

"Probably no need for us to vote honey, we've already won". "Karl Rove just said so on FOX."

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

Tell me if I'm wrong.

There are a few GOP/ Tea Party supporters here, complaining about the rise in costs with this unholy Obamacare. Fair enough.

But when asked to log onto the site and get a quote, they have come up with a myriad of excuses. I'm expecting someone to say; "my dog ate the router/ laptop" at this stage. It looks very disingenuous, dodging questions like that.

I tried... It failed.

Amerika

jman0war wrote: »

The fact is the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed and signed into law by the President, not to mention upheld after a Supreme Court challenge; fully in accordance with the US Constitution.

What the Republicans are doing today is an attempt to obstruct the law coming into force, by non-constitutional means.
It's a affront to american democracy.

The Affordable Healthcare Act is the law of the land regardless of present antics.

Throwing toys out of the pram isn't going to stop it.

Huh? This president has quite a history of ignoring laws that he finds inconvenient including immigration enforcement, drug enforcement, DOMA, and even his own healthcare law… like the delay of the employer mandate and the part of the law that explicitly bars individuals in federally-run healthcare exchanges from receiving a particular tax benefit. Or is it simply okay just when Obama does it? And when we again get a Rebublican president, will it be okay for him/her to ignore laws also... or will that be different?

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

How much is this fine, and isn't it better to pay for the insurance and have health cover, than to pay a fine and end up with nothing?

Depends on your viewpoint and if you’re a betting man or woman. The fine is $95 or 1% of income whichever is higher, and likely unenforceable. On average young adults only spend $854 a year on health care, and ObamaCare requires them to buy insurance policies at around $5,800 a year. You do the math! Perhaps we should just round them up if they decide not to buy insurance and send them off to some gulag.

(and we all seem to love those warm and fuzzy yabuts )

jman0war

Amerika wrote: »

Huh? This president has quite a history of ignoring laws that he finds inconvenient including immigration enforcement, drug enforcement, DOMA, and even his own healthcare law… like the delay of the employer mandate and the part of the law that explicitly bars individuals in federally-run healthcare exchanges from receiving a particular tax benefit. Or is it simply okay just when Obama does it? And when we again get a Rebublican president, will it be okay for him/her to ignore laws also... or will that be different?

Completely and utterly irrelavant to discussion.

Republicans sabotaging the functioning of the US government because they don't like the Affordable Healthcare Act has got absolutely nothing to do with Obama's Consitutional right as US President to sign bills into law.