ACA: Affordable Care Act (better known as OBAMACARE) - Enrollment Starts October 1st - You In?

$5 Billion of taxpayers money to help Americans get healthcare in comparison to what??

How about the $38 Billion spent on foreign aid. I don't see too many Tea Party and Republicans complaining about that.

:smh: #priorities

View media item 970778
 
It's 5 billion for a website. Not the program. The website could have been built on a fraction of what was originally spent. The government figures because it's taxpayer money and an interest free loan, they could do whetever they please. Had they hired some guys out of MIT we wouldn't be having this discussion today.
 
Rell826 said:
It's 5 billion for a website. Not the program. The website could have been built on a fraction of what was originally spent. The government figures because it's taxpayer money and an interest free loan, they could do whetever they please. Had they hired some guys out of MIT we wouldn't be having this discussion today.
Click to expand...
i dont understand how we can spend 5 billy on a website but have homeless people out on the street
country is messed up
cant even help ourselves with our own money
crazy thing is we know what the problem is
but we just to lazy to do anything
we all worried about paying our own bills
and living day to day to put food on the table to do anything :smh:
 
Last edited:
Rell826 said:
It's 5 billion for a website. Not the program. The website could have been built on a fraction of what was originally spent. The government figures because it's taxpayer money and an interest free loan, they could do whetever they please. Had they hired some guys out of MIT we wouldn't be having this discussion today.
Click to expand...

actually its more that the system by the goverment hands out contracts is broken.

basically the company thats best at complying with an endless see of paperwork, is the one that gets the contract, rather than the company most qualified.



in fact there are companies that exist only to get goverment contract work and then outsource the work to cheaper less qualified companies.

that leads you to obamacare website disaster.
 
kdawg said:
^ that's not what I said anyway.

Prisoners do get healthcare - it's just provided as part of the whole imprisonment package. It's not like they're thrown in a cage and denied basic necessities. They're a vulnerable group (lot of drug users etc) and bored so accessing healthcare gives them something to do.

I was just making the point that allowing them to be covered by the ACA could actually be financially better for taxpayers.
Click to expand...

They are not covered by ACA if that's what you meant
 
nawghtyhare said:
i dont understand how we can spend 5 billy on a website but have homeless people out on the street
country is messed up
cant even help ourselves with our own money
crazy thing is we know what the problem is
but we just to lazy to do anything
we all worried about paying our own bills
and living day to day to put food on the table to do anything :smh:
Click to expand...

Politics. What ever company that is making the website some replubican politician owns or his partner.. Just like when when Bush did Iraq war his boy Donald own the war surplus company and Bush had stock in it so really they are paying their selves with tax payer money
 
Superb said:
kdawg said:
^ that's not what I said anyway.

Prisoners do get healthcare - it's just provided as part of the whole imprisonment package. It's not like they're thrown in a cage and denied basic necessities. They're a vulnerable group (lot of drug users etc) and bored so accessing healthcare gives them something to do.

I was just making the point that allowing them to be covered by the ACA could actually be financially better for taxpayers.
Click to expand...

They are not covered by ACA if that's what you meant
Click to expand...

Nope, that's why I didn't say that.
 
SunDOOBIE said:
$5 Billion of taxpayers money to help Americans get healthcare in comparison to what??

How about the $38 Billion spent on foreign aid. I don't see too many Tea Party and Republicans complaining about that.

mean.gif
#priorities
Click to expand...
The difference is that with foreign aid, we're essentially trying to pay for friends (or at least to not have them ally with our enemies). I'm not going to justify whether it's right or wrong, but it is what it is. Now the oversight of that money is a completely different story and I think one that's been beaten to death by both sides.

The problem with this is that we've had a LONG history of government waste when implementing programs that are otherwise redundant. The problem with ACA is that instead of mandating that insurance companies couldn't reject patients for pre-existing conditions or pull coverage when the patients needed it, they instead tried monopolizing the whole program under a government umbrella. The problem with government is that here is always a tendency to grow so large that it starts crowding out other sectors and eventually eats itself out of existence.

FYI... that infographic you showed said that we've already spent as much on the ACA website as our two largest foreign aid recipients. That's pretty significant if you ask me considering none of the large tech firms paid anywhere near that to scale their sites.
 
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/f...sured-low-survey-shows?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
[h1]Obamacare Enrollment for Uninsured Is Low, Survey Shows[/h1]
obamacare44-front-offlead.jpg


NEW YORK (MainStreet) — While Obamacare enrollment did increase during the open enrollment period ending in April, the program did not serve the uninsured, according to findings of a McKinsey Center for U.S. Healthcare Reform survey.

Of course, that uninsured demographic was the prime reason for its implementation. Only 26% of the enrollees reported being previously uninsured. By a three-to-one margin, enrollees in Obamacare were previously insured.

Furthermore, only 83% of the previously uninsured have paid their first premium compared to 89% of the previously insured who paid their premium. Also, according to the survey, only "only 21% of the previously uninsured respondents in our April survey who indicated that they had shopped for coverage reported enrolling in a plan."

This lends credence to the often heard criticism by Republicans that Obama's reform program caused more people to lose insurance then it did to insure the uninsured. So it is difficult to see where Obamacare benefitted those who President Obama said it was going to benefit - the uninsured.

The reason provided most often for not enrolling by both previously insured and previously uninsured was the affordability.

But about 90% of all were eligible for subsidies and did not know it. According to McKinsey, "66% of the April respondents and 65% of the February respondents who were subsidy-eligible and who reported that they had shopped but did not enroll because of affordability concerns were unaware of their eligibility." To boot, previously uninsured, subsidy-eligible respondents who indicated they were aware of the subsidies were almost three times as likely to have reported enrolling as those who were unaware.
 
Dude just stop. No one is listening, no one cares about your articles

At this point you're just making yourself look bitter and foolish

When major news breaks, then maybe we can pick up the discussions.

But until then, just

 
RustyShackleford said:
Dude just stop. No one is listening, no one cares about your articles

At this point you're just making yourself look bitter and foolish

When major news breaks, then maybe we can pick up the discussions.
Click to expand...
What finally broke Prohibition? Was it major news? Or the slow drip over the decade that it wasn't working? We're already 3 years into this grand scheme and barely anything is working according to design even after paying into the system an additional 2 years ahead of when it was rolled out.
 
crcballer55 said:
RustyShackleford said:
Dude just stop. No one is listening, no one cares about your articles


At this point you're just making yourself look bitter and foolish


When major news breaks, then maybe we can pick up the discussions.
Click to expand...

What finally broke Prohibition? Was it major news? Or the slow drip over the decade that it wasn't working? We're already 3 years into this grand scheme and barely anything is working according to design even after paying into the system an additional 2 years ahead of when it was rolled out.
Click to expand...

So your planning on bumping a dead thread continuously thinking it makes a difference? I'm not even gonna touch your nonsense comparison.

This is discussion board brah, threads die, people talk about other things, and when new news hit, the discussion comes back around. Let it go for now

Plus lets be honest, your post are making zero difference and when positive comes about the program. You never post any of it.

You not "fighting the good fight". You're just salty
 
This is NOT a bailout. I repeat... This is NOT a bailout...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1
The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.
Click to expand...
 
crcballer55 said:
We're already 3 years into this grand scheme and barely anything is working according to design even after paying into the system an additional 2 years ahead of when it was rolled out.
Click to expand...

You sure?


Marketwatch is reporting that an advisory issued by economic researcher Alec Phillips over at Goldman Sachs reports that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) boosted GDP in the first quarter of 2014 and projects that the same will occur in the second quarter.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...r-the-economy-goldman-sachs-does-thats-who-2/
Click to expand...

Americans (crcballer55) who have invested so deeply in hating Obamacare will not be quick to give up the ghost. But it is becoming increasingly clear that these folks are on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Okay, time for me to get onboard. I have no health insurance for this whole year (finished school in Dec, work start Jan. 2016). Any idea how much would it cost for a late 20's, single, unemployed guy per month in CA? Any clue as to the sort of benefits (though I haven't been to a hospital in a long time, except for the required work physical)?
 
For my brah Crcballer :smokin

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...eme-court-rules-obamacare-subsidies-are-legal

The Supreme Court today handed the Obama administration a major victory on health care, ruling 6-3 that nationwide subsidies called for in the Affordable Care Act are legal.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," the court's majority said in the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. But they acknowledged that "petitioners' arguments about the plain meaning ... are strong."

The majority opinion cited the law's "more than a few examples of inartful drafting," but added, "the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."

Roberts was joined by the court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as well as by Anthony Kennedy.

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," an apparent reference to the fact the Supreme Court has now saved the Affordable Care Act twice. Scalia called the majority's reading of the text "quite absurd, and the court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."

As NPR's Nina Totenberg reported in March, opponents of the law contended "that the text of the law does not authorize subsidies to make mandated insurance affordable in 34 states."

At issue were six words in one section of the law. As Nina pointed out: "Those words stipulate that for people who cannot afford health coverage, subsidies are available through 'an exchange established by the state.' " She added:

"The government [contended] that those words refer to any exchange, whether it is set up by the state itself or an exchange run for the state by the federal government in accordance with individual state insurance laws and regulations. The challengers [said] the statute means what it says and no more."
The court agreed today with the government's position.

Today's decision comes three years after a bitterly divided high court upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional by a 5-to-4 vote.
Click to expand...

View media item 1598955
 
Last edited:
Not about to go through this whole thread, but I solidly approve of overhauling our health care system.

I can't imagine if all of a sudden said that only some people, rich people, were entitled to education. Crazy that there are some people thinking that every single person in our country (and honestly world) should not receive free health care. Its health care.

It makes zero sense to me that someone should be denied medical care, when a prisoner/murderer/felon gets it for free (paid for by us the taxpayer).

If I had to give up 5% of my paycheck for a nationalized, affordable healthcare system I would gladly do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom