Barrack Obama

[atlkvb]

It was a bold policy that ATTEMPTED to address the income gap. You said he made no attempt, I said he did. Whether the ACA worked or not, is another discussion.

Then why didn't you say it failed at what it was designed to do? You promoted it as a success, then after @WVUALLEN shot it down with its dismal performance you're trying to say it was just an "attempt" to close the wealth gap you initially argued it closed.

You just can't admit you were wrong. You didnt initially argue it as an "attempt" . You linked to an article promoting its success.

You were wrong.

 

[atlkvb]

Then you should’ve said that in the thread title (Oh that’s right, it wasn’t you- it was your teammate) - I wouldn’t have posted in it. And I do think big O should get credit for trying something bold, status quo ain’t changing without somethin bold, imo.

But like I’ve said many FVCKING times - I didn’t even vote for him in ‘12 because of my disappointment. And as much as I love “pounding my peter” to the constant farts Orangeman rips daily, I’m pretty sure I’m not voting for O’s VP either. But you keep things simple upstairs, I’d hate to give you headache.

Just like an angry Woman. Pouting, stomping, hair flailing....stop that!

 

[Boomboom521]

Then why didn't you say it failed at what it was designed to do? You promoted it as a success, then after @WVUALLEN shot it down with its dismal performance you're trying to say it was just an "attempt" to close the wealth gap you initially argued it closed.

You just can't admit you were wrong. You didnt initially argue it as an "attempt" . You linked to an article promoting its success.

You were wrong.

Where did I say it was a success?

 

[Boomboom521]

Just like and angry Woman. Pouting, stomping, hair flailing....stop that!

Obsessed

 

[atlkvb]

Obsessed

Marked

 

[atlkvb]

Where did I say it was a success?

You linked to an article calling out its performance metrics in defense of your argument suggesting it both lowered insurance costs, expanded access, and proved a financial success for participants.

You could not be more inaccurate in that assessment of the end results of the ACA. It was and is a dismal failure. It's not even arguable if you are intellectually honest.

 

[tOSUGrad90]

Everyone that has a formal job pays for Medicare but Medicare is for people over age 65. So people with formal jobs pay for the insurance of other people but not necessarily themselves. They and/or their employer have to pay separate for the workers health insurance or else they don't pay and the worker has no health insurance, which most people find fine until they get sick and get handed medical bills they can't pay or they can pay but are so large they don't want to pay.

Medicare is also used by "disabled" people under 65, and that means many people here in West Virginia. A typical employee pays 1.45 cents out of every dollar that he earns to Medicare, and the employer matches the 1.45 cents, so a self-employed person typically pays 2.9 cents out of each dollar to Medicare.

 

[Boomboom521]

You linked to an article calling out its performance metrics in defense of your argument suggesting it both lowered insurance costs, expanded access, and proved a financial success for participants.

You could not be more inaccurate in that assessment of the end results of the ACA. It was and is a dismal favor.

It wasn’t my assessment. It was a quantitative data that showed effectiveness of the ACA in years ‘13 And ‘14. I’m sure the article had flaws and the long term success of the ACA was not addressed in the paper itself. But the paper did clear identify the changes made by the ACA that was effectively addressing the racial income gap in its infancy. I thought that was relevant when the OP stated that O never pursued bold policies to address them. Quantitative data in the paper (in case your not aware: quantitative data isn’t opinion) showed clearly this attempt helped in the short term.

I personally did not like the attempt, and wasn’t a backer of the policy, although I respected its attempt. And I think big O should get credit for attempting a bold change to address a big problem in the US.

 

[atlkvb]

Where did I say it was a success?

In the very first line of the article you linked to.

Conclusions. The ACA has reduced racial/ethnic disparities in coverage, although substantial disparities remain.

Where anywhere in your post after that did you argue it did not accomplish its stated objectives. Why did you link that article without any other qualifications other than to promote its overall success?

 

[atlkvb]

It wasn’t my assessment. It was a quantitative data that showed effectiveness of the ACA in years ‘13 And ‘14. I’m sure the article had flaws and the long term success of the ACA was not addressed in the paper itself. But the paper did clear identify the changes made by the ACA that was effectively addressing the racial income gap in its infancy. I thought that was relevant when the OP stated that O never pursued bold policies to address them. Quantitative data in the paper (in case your not aware: quantitative data isn’t opinion) showed clearly this attempt helped in the short term.

I personally did not like the attempt, and wasn’t a backer of the policy, although I respected its attempt. And I think big O should get credit for attempting a bold change to address a big problem in the US.

OK but as I said you didn't post that article in defense of an "attempt" to address the income disparities. You posted it as a success, albeit with some missed objectives. Then when the entire policy was dismantled by @WVUALLEN , you couldn't counter that solid analysis of its overall failure and now you're arguing it as an honest attempt to address the very disparities it was promoted to address.

You still cannot admit it was a policy failure. The most you will admit is that "at least Obama tried and was bold". Yes that's true.

He also failed. In fact it was an unarguable failure. You claim that's for "another discussion". No it's not. It will always be a failure, just like the person it's named after.

 

[tOSUGrad90]

Of course, OBooma gives a reach-around to Obama...even for a failed policy. I'd expect nothing else from OBooma, the orange man hater. No Obooma praise of Trump for supporting historically black colleges or the record low African-America unemployment rate achieved under his watch. Obooma should accept the fact that he/she sees everything through a left-leaning prism, and stop pretending otherwise.

 

[op2]

It wasn’t my assessment. It was a quantitative data that showed effectiveness of the ACA in years ‘13 And ‘14. I’m sure the article had flaws and the long term success of the ACA was not addressed in the paper itself. But the paper did clear identify the changes made by the ACA that was effectively addressing the racial income gap in its infancy. I thought that was relevant when the OP stated that O never pursued bold policies to address them. Quantitative data in the paper (in case your not aware: quantitative data isn’t opinion) showed clearly this attempt helped in the short term.

I personally did not like the attempt, and wasn’t a backer of the policy, although I respected its attempt. And I think big O should get credit for attempting a bold change to address a big problem in the US.

Okay, Medicare pays for disabled people under 65 too, but a person under 65 with a job that is paying into Medicare isn't disabled.

 

[Boomboom521]

Of course, OBooma gives a reach-around to Obama...even for a failed policy. I'd expect nothing else from OBooma, the orange man hater. No Obooma praise of Trump for supporting historically black colleges or the record low African-America unemployment rate achieved under his watch. Obooma should accept the fact that he/she sees everything through a left-leaning prism, and stop pretending otherwise.

I have literally called myself a liberal multiple times. I don’t pretend to be anything. ACA addressed a problem, a problem that helps prevent closing the income gap. It hasn’t worked, all I see the right do is point to it’s failures. You literally can’t offer a solution yourselves, you couldn’t even repeal the fvcker, in the Senate at that.

If I say it failed, will you little bitches be happy? It failed. It failed.

But I still give big O credit for being bold. I wish he would’ve been as bold addressing corruption in Congress, Making cuts to our budget, eliminating W’s assault on civil liberties, and ending the conflict overseas - he wasn’t, so he lost my vote.

 

[atlkvb]

Of course, OBooma gives a reach-around to Obama...even for a failed policy. I'd expect nothing else from OBooma, the orange man hater. No Obooma praise of Trump for supporting historically black colleges or the record low African-America unemployment rate achieved under his watch. Obooma should accept the fact that he/she sees everything through a left-leaning prism, and stop pretending otherwise.

Exactly! I posted on here the other day that while at times he can be eloquent and is obviously well informed, he's still one of the biggest Left wing hacks on this board while pretending to be factually objective.

Plus he always gets emotional and stains his pretty pink panties when folks challenge him or prove him wrong which he never admits to.

 

[tOSUGrad90]

Hitler was bold, too, so are you going to cyber blow his corpse on a message board for almost wiping out a race of people and starting World War II, OBooma?

 

[atlkvb]

If I say it failed, will you little bitches be happy? It failed. It failed.

Look at boomer gettin' his panties all stained because he was proven wrong. If you are admitting now while you are pouting like a scorned Lover that Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement has been an abject failure will you also admit Government trying to run private health insurance is also a failed idea?

I'll 100% guarantee your inbred Socialist insticts won't allow you to go quite that far huh?

 

[Boomboom521]

Hitler was bold, too, so are you going to cyber blow his corpse on a message board for almost wiping out a race of people and starting World War II, OBooma?

Legit, I guess

 

[atlkvb]

Legit, I guess

No "I guess"....that Buckeye smacked you right on your wet look lips with that analogy. Admit he's spot on. Can you?

(I'd post a meme of one of your Metrosexual Sistahs here but I'm on my android phone and it's impossible)

 

[Kazzman]

I'm going out on a limb and say you have insurance. Do you enjoy paying double the cost for your premium insurance? Are you happy to to pay a 60/40 instead of 80/20?

“It’s more likely someone is going to get caught cheating on this than on their small business taxes.” — —Timothy Jost, professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law

Its utterly amazing regarding the stupidity and ignorance of the average republican re the finite
points of the ACA as well as the lack of any alternative being proposed by the GOP to address
medical coverage for uninsured Americans.

 

[atlkvb]

Its utterly amazing regarding the stupidity and ignorance of the average republican re the finite
points of the ACA as well as the lack of any alternative being proposed by the GOP to address
medical coverage for uninsured Americans.

The GOP had a detailed proposal to replace the ACA. McCain voted against it in the Senate joining all Democrats opposing it and that killed it.

When Trump gets re-elected with Republican majorities in both chambers, Patient based market driven health care choice reforms will be re-introduced and will pass.

 

[op2]

The GOP had a detailed proposal to replace the ACA. McCain voted against it in the Senate joining all Democrats opposing it and that killed it.

When Trump gets re-elected with Republican majorities in both chambers, Patient based market driven health care choice reforms will be re-introduced and will pass.

If you think the Republicans are going to win all three of the White House, the House and the Senate in November then I want some of what you're smoking.

 

[atlkvb]

If you think the Republicans are going to win all three of the White House, the House and the Senate in November then I want some of what you're smoking.

I don't do drugs. I vote. So will millions of other Americans. Enough to wipe out all the illegal or manufactured votes Democrats can harvest.

 

[Kazzman]

The GOP had a detailed proposal to replace the ACA. McCain voted against it in the Senate joining all Democrats opposing it and that killed it.

When Trump gets re-elected with Republican majorities in both chambers, Patient based market driven health care choice reforms will be re-introduced and will pass.

The GOP has none and has never presented any such plan.

 

[atlkvb]

The GOP has none and has never presented any such plan.

You should turn off CNN, they're turning you ignorant and uninformed.

The impressive new Obamacare replace plan from Republicans
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...epublicans-burr-hatch-and-upton/#199e737456eb

How the patient care act would repeal and replace Obamacare
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...ld-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/#67202fef68cd


2017 Patient protection & affordable care act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act_replacement_proposals

 

[WVUALLEN]

Its utterly amazing regarding the stupidity and ignorance of the average republican re the finite
points of the ACA as well as the lack of any alternative being proposed by the GOP to address
medical coverage for uninsured Americans.

Obamacare failed. Move along lassy.

 

[Mntneer]

Thanks for the history lesson that we’re all well aware of, new guy. The individual mandate was repealed. My heartburn with it is over. It’ll succeed or it won’t. If it doesn’t, and let’s be honest, unless the left infuses massive amounts of change and money into it, it’s going to fail, it’ll be the death rattle for liberal policies as it was the most signature piece of legislation since LBJs ********. We have 60 years of failure tied to those and you all just keep on trying to dump money.

10 more years boys, 10 more years. I’m heading out of the US, burning my passport when I land either in the Islands or central/South America and you all can have this fvcking lunatic asylum. You need me, I’ll be the gringo in flip flops with a nice tan telling the latest Marlin or Sailfish story coming off my boat and heading to my restaurant.

I may have to take the same route. I fear the inmates will be running the asylum, and I won’t be in the mood to tell them “I told you so”

 

[WVUALLEN]

The GOP has none and has never presented any such plan.

The main provisions of the RSC plan include:

• Unwinding ACA’s “Washington-centric approach” and returns most of the regulatory authority back to the states;
• Undoing ACA’s expensive and mandatory essential health benefits, annual lifetime limits, preventive care with no cost-sharing, dependent coverage, and metal actuarial tiers (bronze, silver etc.), and allows states to prescribe these principles;
• Not allowing insurance carriers to rescind, increase rates, or refuse to renew a person’s health insurance if they should develop an illness after enrollment;
• Allowing individuals with chronic and risky medical conditions to have access to affordable state-run Guaranteed Coverage Pools, subsidized by federal grants;
• Restructuring the guaranteed issue and prohibition on coverage exclusions to reward continuous coverage and promote portability in the individual marketplace;
• Restructuring ACA premium subsidies and Medicaid Expansion federal matching programs to fund state-administered grants to subsidize health insurance for low-income individuals, while protecting the medically vulnerable, such as low-income pregnant woman and children, that Medicaid was created to help;
• Changing the tax code to provide for equal treatment of employer and individual health insurance markets;
• Expanding the use of pre-tax Health Savings Accounts (HSA), including using them to pay for insurance premiums, and increases allowable yearly contributions from $3,500 to $9,000 for individuals and from $7,000 to $18,000 for families;
• Extending portability protections (contained in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act for employer-sponsored health insurance) to the individual market;
• Eliminating the employer mandate; and
• Promoting the use of innovative healthcare solutions such as telemedicine, direct primary care, association health plans, and health sharing ministries.
  
  
  

The proposal provides a good overview of the problems that Obamacare caused, such as sky-high premiums and forcing people to buy health insurance plans that contain mandatory benefits they did not want or need, such as a single man paying for maternity care. It explains how Obamacare has distorted the job market with the employer mandate and how Medicaid Expansion hurt the vulnerable by extending the program to abled-bodied individuals without dependents that compete with traditional Medicaid recipients, such as poor, pregnant women, looking for care.

The RSC healthcare reform proposal is a strong and effective antidote to "Medicare for All" that would cost $32 trillion in new taxes and force everyone into a government-run system.

The next time you hear someone say the Republicans have no plan to improve healthcare, you can tell them they are wrong and point to the RSC plan.

https://mikejohnson.house.gov/media/in-the-news/republican-plan-health-care

 

[atlkvb]

The main provisions of the RSC plan include:

• Unwinding ACA’s “Washington-centric approach” and returns most of the regulatory authority back to the states;
• Undoing ACA’s expensive and mandatory essential health benefits, annual lifetime limits, preventive care with no cost-sharing, dependent coverage, and metal actuarial tiers (bronze, silver etc.), and allows states to prescribe these principles;
• Not allowing insurance carriers to rescind, increase rates, or refuse to renew a person’s health insurance if they should develop an illness after enrollment;
• Allowing individuals with chronic and risky medical conditions to have access to affordable state-run Guaranteed Coverage Pools, subsidized by federal grants;
• Restructuring the guaranteed issue and prohibition on coverage exclusions to reward continuous coverage and promote portability in the individual marketplace;
• Restructuring ACA premium subsidies and Medicaid Expansion federal matching programs to fund state-administered grants to subsidize health insurance for low-income individuals, while protecting the medically vulnerable, such as low-income pregnant woman and children, that Medicaid was created to help;
• Changing the tax code to provide for equal treatment of employer and individual health insurance markets;
• Expanding the use of pre-tax Health Savings Accounts (HSA), including using them to pay for insurance premiums, and increases allowable yearly contributions from $3,500 to $9,000 for individuals and from $7,000 to $18,000 for families;
• Extending portability protections (contained in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act for employer-sponsored health insurance) to the individual market;
• Eliminating the employer mandate; and
• Promoting the use of innovative healthcare solutions such as telemedicine, direct primary care, association health plans, and health sharing ministries.
  
  

The proposal provides a good overview of the problems that Obamacare caused, such as sky-high premiums and forcing people to buy health insurance plans that contain mandatory benefits they did not want or need, such as a single man paying for maternity care. It explains how Obamacare has distorted the job market with the employer mandate and how Medicaid Expansion hurt the vulnerable by extending the program to abled-bodied individuals without dependents that compete with traditional Medicaid recipients, such as poor, pregnant women, looking for care.

The RSC healthcare reform proposal is a strong and effective antidote to "Medicare for All" that would cost $32 trillion in new taxes and force everyone into a government-run system.

The next time you hear someone say the Republicans have no plan to improve healthcare, you can tell them they are wrong and point to the RSC plan.

https://mikejohnson.house.gov/media/in-the-news/republican-plan-health-care

Take that Kazzman with the "glass jaw"

@WVUALLEN with the devastating right to the "Left" jaw of @Kazzman

 

[WVUALLEN]

Everyone that has a formal job pays for Medicare but Medicare is for people over age 65. So people with formal jobs pay for the insurance of other people but not necessarily themselves. They and/or their employer have to pay separate for the workers health insurance or else they don't pay and the worker has no health insurance, which most people find fine until they get sick and get handed medical bills they can't pay or they can pay but are so large they don't want to pay.

Generally, Medicare is available for people age 65 or older, younger people with disabilities and people with End Stage Renal Disease permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant.

Age 65 and older Medicare rules
You qualify for full Medicare benefits at age 65 or older if:

• You are a U.S. citizen or a permanent legal resident who has lived in the United States for at least five years; and

• You or your spouse has worked long enough to be eligible for Social Security or railroad retirement benefits — usually having earned 40 credits from about 10 years of work — even if you are not yet receiving these benefits; or

• You or your spouse is a government employee or retiree who has not paid into Social Security but has paid Medicare payroll taxes while working.

Note: Earning 40 credits through payroll taxes while working guarantees that you will not have to pay premiums for Part A benefits, mainly coverage for inpatient hospital care. You do not need any work credits to qualify for Part B, which is mainly doctors’ services and outpatient care, or for Part D prescription drug coverage.

You can qualify for premium-free Part A benefits on your spouse's work record if the spouse is at least 62 years old and you are at least 65. You also may qualify on the work record of a divorced or deceased spouse.

Younger than 65? You still may be eligible
You qualify for full Medicare benefits under age 65 if:

• You have been entitled to Social Security disability benefits for at least 24 months that need not be consecutive, or

• You receive a disability pension from the Railroad Retirement Board and meet certain conditions, or

• You have Lou Gehrig's disease, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which qualifies you immediately; or

You have permanent kidney failure requiring regular dialysis or a kidney transplant — and you or your spouse has paid Social Security taxes for a specified length of time depending on your age.

https://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-04-2011/medicare-eligibility.html