“That is exactly what I am telling you. Prior to 2012, our premiums went up 3 percent per year. We have had double digit increases in 2012 and 2013. Your comment was that the aca would only affect 95% of people. I am here to tell you that your statement is incorrect. This is not only about people losing current policies, but premiums rising across the board for everyone. Where do you think the money is coming from to fund all the new people on insurance? It is incumbent on all insured to pay into a system for the uninsured. Therefore all insured people are affected by this. I am not commenting on the act itself, just that it is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.”
dickddudna on Nov 11, 2013 at 23:50:57
“Perhaps you should think about changing that first point you are trying to make:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/kff11.png
As you can clearly see, HC premium increases have been far greater than the 3% per year you are claiming. This is why we are in the mess we are in today -- not because of Obamacare. Are we all paying more for Obamacare -- yes, but most of us are not paying all that much more specifically because of Obamacare and some of us will be paying less. Unfortunately, some will be paying more and in some cases a lot more. When I talk about the 95% I'm not implying there hasn't been a cost increase because of Obamacare, I'm saying it's not as bad as some would have you think.
As the graph shows, HC premiums have been rising at alarming rates for years. Obamacare does not really address this -- not enough cost reduction measures built into the law. The bottom line, HC cost/premiums would have gone up with or without Obamacare. By the way, large corporation have seen their HC premiums increase at the slowest rate in years this year -- google it -- not saying this is because of Obamacare either. ”
“I think you have no idea what you are talking about. As a small business owner, our premiums went up 25%. Blame whomever you see fit, but this affects everyone in the form of higher premiums and those that will pay penalties.”
dickddudna on Nov 9, 2013 at 17:44:45
“Are you trying to tell me that your HC premiums did not go up prior to Obamacare? Are you kidding? Between 2000 - 2009 HC premiums doubled. Obamacare has been a false rallying cry for people who are frustrated with the high cost of HC in this country. Obamacare did not create this mess. It's not responsible for a system of HC that is the most expensive in the world by a factor of two. Nor is it responsible for nearly 48 million people being uninsured. The old way was killing us. Obamacare is not the best answer either but it's movement. In other words, your premiums were going to go up no matter what -- with or without Obamacare -- how small are you and are you receiving any tax breaks? ”
“I actually like that this is stirring up controversy. I have no doubt that african americans are targeted by security personnel, i have seen it. But the other facet to the conversation is regarding the customer service and how you are sized up when you walk into a store. It does not matter what color you are, if you are deemed not worthy to shop in their store, you are made to feel as such. It astounds me that the only up scale store with consistent positive experiences is Nordstrom.”
“Your comment is fair, i am just not a big fan of conspiracy theorists. You give republicans too much credit for having a secret room where they meet to create secret societies. I truly think the bottom line is that the Texas legislature is limiting the term for abortion which you do not seem to be opposed to at all. Under Obamacare, which is now in effect, poor people specifically women have well visits covered as well as annual mammograms. That is why it is such a great piece of legislation, the uninsured have just as much financial access as anyone else. As far as family planning centers, if there is a dollar of govt money to be made, somebody will come in and fill that market.”
“Your moniker is a bit deceiving. You need to put this in perspective. A 20 week old fetus means that a woman has been pregnant for quite a while at least 4-5 months and is half way through her pregnancy. It becomes a bit difficult as at 24 weeks, fetuses are nearing the term where science can keep a pre-term baby alive. I am pro-choice, but I cannot condone late term abortions. How late is too late for you? Would you allow babies to be born and subsequently killed? Of course not, but the answers are not as convenient as blaming rich people. When a pregnancy test costs $10 and plan B is now available, every woman has the opportunity to at least find out if they are pregnant and control reproductive options. Responsibility should start well before 20 weeks even comes.”
humaneisfact on Jul 13, 2013 at 11:43:10
“regarding the servant class....this IS exactly why Republicans try so hard to oppress women.I could write a book on reasons why.Most non republicans understand this too.”
humaneisfact on Jul 13, 2013 at 11:41:30
“I do not question the 20 week time limit.I support contraceptions and plan b.I question closing all the family planning clinics.If you really believe republicans are pro-life and care about "babies' you are naive or willfully ignorant.I never "blamed" rich people,either,so I dont know where youre coming from on that issue.I simply said rich women will have abortions whenever they want regardless of any laws that really only effect poor women.Family planning clinics offered safe,unjudgemental and cost effective help for women not only for abortions but plan b and contraceptives and education.If you think republicans took this away for any reason other than to prevent poor women from controlling their futures you are sadly naive .Its obvious they do not care about life.Its evident in their every action and word uttered.”
“Yeah, great for you. Most americans work very hard for their money, union and non-union. Punching people in face for disagreeing is against the law and considered assault. Obviously this is something that you condone. You can disagree all you want about the right to work referendum while living in a state that supports it. My property taxes have doubled in the last 8 years and I feel that this endangers my livelihood. I guess it is OK for me to go and punch my county assessor.”
“If you live in Virginia, you live in a right to work state. Your comment is pointless.”
RedneckDem on Dec 12, 2012 at 20:45:47
“I was born in Michigan and have several relatives who work the auto lines. They work hard for their money and farm their land in their spare time. They are proud Americans and I would willingly fight for their livelihoods, as they would for mine. Should be something a repub would understand seeing how you guys are always carrying the water for the 1%.”
“Nice blanket statement that means nothing - you want me to go back 20 years? Give me a break. I focus on today and how it will affect our employees today.”
LightShadow62 on Dec 6, 2012 at 10:06:31
“You go back 5 years to make the claim that large increases are completely because of Obamacare. I simply pointed out that these insurance companies have a long history of raising rates by double digits without any influence from Obamacare.”
“You could not be more wrong. Our insurance rates over the past 5 years have gone up 3-5%. I just got the negotiated contract for our 2013 insurance and it went up 18%. This increase is a direct correlation to Obamacare - what a joke.”
LightShadow62 on Dec 6, 2012 at 01:07:55
“Then you obviously missed the numerous double digit increases in health insurance rates during the 1990's and 2000s.”
“Sorry, but I think bad grammar is something that should be corrected. Please take this as a learning experience and apply lessons learned to your future patronizing comments.
The sentence "If your a grammar cop your doing a very bad job" exemplifies the incorrect use of the word Your. The sentence should be the corrected to read "If you're a grammar cop, you're doing a very bad job". Your is possessive and You Are is a conjugate. There is also a comma missing from your sentence after the word cop Additionally, there should also be a comma after the word "Plus".”
Gloriousbastrd on Nov 28, 2012 at 08:50:18
“I did that on purpose cause I new what you'er reaction would be. You might be book smart but you have no common since. It's so easy to get your goat. You have became so OCD i gaurantee you will write me back with knew correctons from what I just wrote. It's been real, it's been fun, take care.”
“I am sorry but I just have to correct your grammar. You cannot make Toe and Say possessive. You only use an apostrophe to indicate that the noun is associated somehow, like Henry's bag or the children's ride. The correct words for you are "says" and "toes".”
Gloriousbastrd on Nov 27, 2012 at 15:27:01
“If your a grammar cop your doing a very bad job, Plus you should take a look at your own grammar. Now do something useful and go play in the dirt,”
“You amuse me. I am not sure this world of mine that I grew up in is quite ancient history. I am guessing I am 10-15 years younger than you, but nice try on the ageism. Ok, sign us up for the 1950s again, but if you want to go back to those tax rates, that means we must go back to 1950 government spending levels as a percent. A balanced budget is a two way street.”
Once again, please take the time to research before calling my statements ridiculous.”
martta on Nov 17, 2012 at 23:56:46
“Apologies. You are correct about the larger penalty in larger years, but the application of penalties and who will actually pay them is not such a simple black and white thing, and Yahoo News is not really a good source of information. It doesn't parse the finer points so well. Also it's estimated that only about 6% of the population will be affected by penalties at all, and most of them will be lower income and eligible for government aid in buying insurance -- which, after all, is the whole point. Every uninsured American brings up the costs of healthcare for the rest of us.”
“You know darn well that nobody actually paid 75-91% in taxes back then, so why don't you stop deluding yourself. I am all for letting the bush tax cuts expire, but if you really believe that the 1% new tax rate is going to pay for all the healthcare subsidies, the deficit, and any new spending, then you clearly live in fairy tale world. There is no way the middle class won't be affected, the payroll tax roll back alone ensures that. So when your fabulous money tree that Is magically going to fund everything is grown let me know.”
Ron Sonntag on Jan 3, 2013 at 23:43:51
“Well, no, I don't believe that the 1% will completely eliminate the deficit, but, they easily could eliminate 1/2. The rest can come from the following cuts in spending and additional revenue sources: 1) cut the damn military - we don't need to flush another $2 TRILLION down the absolute hell hole of unsupportable empire building in the wrong damn place and more embassies than there are countries in the world, 2) Eliminate oil subsidies completely - why are we subsidizing the most profitable companies the world has EVER seen?, 3) Eliminate the corporate tax haven - if they are US companies then they can keep their money here, not in off-shore tax havens just to escape paying for the very protection that allows them to operate safely over seas, 4) start re-imposing tariffs and roll-back NAFTA and other harmful treaties that only encourage companies to outsource - the US government used to have 95% of its TOTAL cost covered by tariffs, 5) Impose a per-transaction tax on Wall Street. That will slow down computer trading, provide greater stability, and force these banksters to start caring more about managing clients money rather than focusing on their personal profiteering, 6) Eliminate the CAP on Social Security - this would fully fund Social Security for the next 70+ years without having to scale back CPI or raising the retirement age, 7) Fully socialize health insurance as a single payer universal healthcare coverage by expanding Medicare and eliminate for profit insurance entirely out”
This will help you to understand the size of the deficit and what is being proposed.
I am not sure what you are questioning, but it will be a law in 2014, that most everyone have healthcare (if not supplied by an employer) which they must purchase thru state or federal exchanges. If you do not purchase, you will be fined. These are indisputable facts. You will have to pay monthly premiums depending on your income level and the size of your family. I said an average, my figure was not meant to apply to everyone.
It is always better to educate oneself, than make a self serving snarky comment”
martta on Nov 17, 2012 at 12:01:50
“The size of the tax people pay will depends on how many people are in their household, and how much they earn. In 2014 an individual who earns $35,000 and chooses to opt out will owe just $95– though if he earns $250,000, he’ll wind up paying $2,500 or roughly 1% of adjusted gross income above $9,500. Your "average" assumes a lot of higher income people go uninsured -- which is a pretty ridiculous assumption.”
“I hope the people, regardless of political affiliation really understand the complexity of this. For those thinking that raising the taxes on the wealthy will fix the deficit, you are wrong. The revenue raised is nothing but a small drop in the bucket. The payroll tax cuts will also expire which will affect any w2 wage earners. You all realize that in 2014, when the affordable health care act is fully enacted, everyone who does not have health insurance will be required to buy it from state exchanges or the federal govt. this will cost you on average 625/month. I hope you are budgeting for these extra costs.”
Gloriousbastrd on Nov 28, 2012 at 09:46:45
“Look grasshopper, The rich will be taxed and you will have to get health insurance, So get over it and move on with your life and accept it. Acceptance is a process or condition and your life will go smother once you realize there is not a thing you can do to stop this. Now relax and go eat a cupcake”
Ron Sonntag on Nov 17, 2012 at 12:16:16
“This is the kind of miss-information so typical of the Republicans. First of all, the affordable health care act PROVIDES SUBSIDIES TO THOSE BELOW A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL SO THAT THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS INSURANCE. So quit lying. Secondly, letting the Bush tax cuts expire would bring in "nearly $1 TRILLION in revenue over the next 10 years" [Huffington Post - Harry Bradford, 8/25/2012]. And, that just restores tax rates back to the Clinton years, still a far cry from the 75% - 91% tax rate on those making over $1 million/year in the late 50s - mid 70s. Hmmmmm! That's exactly when the US economy was expanding the fastest and the middle-class was doing the best. Interesting, don't you think?”
kanakka on Nov 17, 2012 at 10:59:25
“Glad to see someone has connected the dots. What you say is what half this country voted for in reelecting President and in keeping the Congress in status quo. Dont' forget about those on Medicare....there monthly SS Plan B premiums will also increase to about $247/month in 2014.”
martta on Nov 17, 2012 at 10:55:53
“Where do you get these figures? Outer space?”
samidean on Nov 17, 2012 at 10:40:27
“Yeah right, and when I have too many expenditures to keep my finances in check, I tend to get rid of one of those expenditures. It may not solve the whole problem, but to keep spending that money is just plain in_san_ity.”
KingKongReggae on Nov 17, 2012 at 10:39:43
“For those thinking that raising the taxes on the wealthy will fix the deficit, you are wrong.
Yet...Republicans made a big deal about defunding NPR, PBS, NEA and Planned Parenthood as an important step in cutting costs and fixing the deficit.
If raising taxes on the wealthy won't fix the deficit which does more to fix the deficit than defunding those programs - then Republicans are wrong to push for those cuts.”
Nov 15, 2012 at 13:04:07
“So what? I really do not see what the big deal is here. Under Obamacare, the employees will be able to get insurance through state exchanges or the federal govt in 2014. Even if this guy was willing to offer insurance, he would not pay their premiums at 100%, the employees would be out of pocket anyway.”
Nov 11, 2012 at 10:10:23
“Again you are the one who said 7 million in revenue and no insurance- Fail. You may not simply things to prove an incorrect assumption. His revenues may be 7 million but his expenses may be 7.5 million. You have no idea what his cash flow situation is and I do not believe for one second that you run a business.”
Nov 10, 2012 at 22:42:13
“Again, I have to say I enjoyed your comment, it is petty and extraordinarily immature. You clearly have never run a business. You point before was incorrect and your commentary here says absolutely nothing other than you think I am a man and physically small. My point is educating you on the difference between revenue and profit.”
Persnicketychick on Nov 10, 2012 at 23:57:41
“Assuming that I do not know the difference is sheer projection on your part. Yes, I have run my own business. No education between the two needed. No, my point was not incorrect. I did not delineate between revenue and profit in my comment. I spoke broadly to simplify things. It appears this did not please you. For that I am greatly sorry. Shall I excuse myself to see the headmaster now?”
Nov 10, 2012 at 18:20:19
“I love this statement "Why do people who have not the slightest idea what they are talking about, insist on talking about that which they have no knowledge? "
If you know so much about everything, you would know that businesses are classified based on employee numbers and not revenue.
I have also enjoyed the complete incorrect interpretation of the ACA. Employers with 50 to 199 employees can either provide health insurance for employees, or pay a tax penalty of $2,000 per employee.
Given that the average cost of insuring an indiviual (and that is for a single person) is around $5000/year, what do u think looks more enticing to a business? It is a bit more complicated than that, but I thought you might want to do a bit of research to help you learn the issues.”
Nov 10, 2012 at 18:01:00
“The article quotes that his company will have seven million in revenue. Revenue is not profit and his expenses could be at parity with revenue. The article does not give us his balance sheet therefore, you may not comment on incorrect interpretations.”
Persnicketychick on Nov 10, 2012 at 20:04:01
“I may comment on anything I see fit to comment on. Your need to control is very telling. Stand down, little man. I know perfectly what my point is and it has nothing at all to do with a spreadsheet. Nice try.”
“I cannot help but roll my eyes at this one - Hysterical nostalgia? Really? This is how one makes a mountain out of a mole hill. If we need to go back to a fictional tv show from 1960 and write an op-ed on the state of America today, this guy is really reaching. Sometimes nostalgia is not all about politics and race and class structures and imbalances. We can all think back to a time when life was perceived as simpler, no cell phones, working as slower pace of life, letting our kids roam freely without fear of the boogeyman, no four letter words and sex dominating conversations on tv.
That's all, nothing more. But no worries Americans, we have people like this author to tell us how we are inferior, political commentators 24x7 to make sure we all remain divisive.”
“History also teaches everyone. It is the thoughtful adaptation based on lessons learned that should be embraced. I'll take a Tom Brokaw any day over a 20 something broadcaster. This "Quick" adaptation you speak of also has given a generation an attitude of self entitlement, the need for quick rewards and immediate gratification. I think YOU are too far removed to get it. Sorry but you sound very hypocritcal -the age of retirement is 65, at which point according to your logic, you will become irrelevant, just as Mr. Brokaw has. Enjoy your last 4 years.”