Leftist societal parasites HATED the Apollo program

On Friday, August 8, 2014 1:24:31 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 20:13:06 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Republicans didn't vote for 0bamacare.

No, but they largely invented the entire system. Republicans viewed it
as preferable to a single-payer system.

Anything resembling conservative input to the bill's contents was put there by liberal Democrats in order to gain the votes of slightly more moderate Democrats.

The liberals in the urban areas thought that 0bamacare would bring them "free" healthcare.

I never heard of anybody thinking it would provide free healthcare.

Then you must have been living under a rock.

Just accessible healthcare. It allowed me to get insurance for the
first time in over a decade. No subsidies, just guaranteed coverage
and an excellent plan.

No subsidies?? Rates are about to double for most holders of private policies. Millions of policies were cancelled late last year and many of those affected couldn't afford the new policies. Workers who have been cut to part time lost access to group insurance. Other companies are reluctant to hire due to the new, higher expense of providing insurance or are just keeping the workforce count to fewer than fifty.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:40:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

No subsidies?? Rates are about to double for most holders of private policies.

All policies are private.

Millions of policies were cancelled late last year and many of those affected couldn't afford the new policies.

Fiction. The percentage of canceled policies was small, and they were
canceled because they were poor quality. And subsidies are available
to those who can't afford policies.

Workers who have been cut to part time lost access to group insurance.

Again, largely fiction. However, that's not a bad thing. One of the
best things that could happen in the long run is eliminating the
connection between employers and health care.

On Friday, August 8, 2014 10:13:07 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:40:41 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

No subsidies?? Rates are about to double for most holders of private policies.

All policies are private.

A private policy is one which the insured enrolls with an insurance company, without government involvement. That should help clear up your ignorance.

Millions of policies were cancelled late last year and many of those affected couldn't afford the new policies.

Fiction. The percentage of canceled policies was small,

Percentage is irrelevant, it's the sheer numbers (millions) that are important.

and they were
canceled because they were poor quality.

That should be up to the insured to decide.

And subsidies are available
to those who can't afford policies.

And the money to pay those subsidies comes from whom, ultimately?

Workers who have been cut to part time lost access to group insurance.

Again, largely fiction.

Incorrect.

However, that's not a bad thing. One of the
best things that could happen in the long run is eliminating the
connection between employers and health care.

That's between the employers and employees, and none of YOUR business, nor the government's, which you would have control such things.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:53:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Percentage is irrelevant, it's the sheer numbers (millions) that are important.

I think percentage is what matters.

and they were
canceled because they were poor quality.

That should be up to the insured to decide.

I don't think so. But then, I consider it the responsibility of
society to ensure that everyone has reasonable health care.

And the money to pay those subsidies comes from whom, ultimately?

From where it should: those who have the resources to provide it.

However, that's not a bad thing. One of the
best things that could happen in the long run is eliminating the
connection between employers and health care.

That's between the employers and employees, and none of YOUR business, nor the government's, which you would have control such things.

It is my business, because under the current system people who receive
their insurance from their employers are being subsidized by those who
don't. I don't care if employers want to provide health care benefits,
but they should be treated as taxable income.

On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:00:18 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:53:34 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Percentage is irrelevant, it's the sheer numbers (millions) that are important.

I think percentage is what matters.

Then you are wrong.

and they were
canceled because they were poor quality.

That should be up to the insured to decide.

I don't think so. But then, I consider it the responsibility of
society to ensure that everyone has reasonable health care.

Society? You meant to say "government," correct? Also what is "reasonable health care." The insured and the insurer should get to decide what is reasonable to each.

And the money to pay those subsidies comes from whom, ultimately?

From where it should: those who have the resources to provide it.

Ah, there we have it... you are a socialist!

However, that's not a bad thing. One of the
best things that could happen in the long run is eliminating the
connection between employers and health care.

That's between the employers and employees, and none of YOUR business, nor
the government's, which you would have control such things.

It is my business, because under the current system people who receive
their insurance from their employers are being subsidized by those who
don't.

No, they are not. Each employee enrolled under a group plan costs the employer about twice what the employee would have to pay for an individual policy with similar coverage. The employee gets a "discount" from the individual premium, but the employer would be in a position to pay the cost of the insurance it pays FOR the employee, TO the employee in lieu of offering insurance as a benefit.

Being a smart person, I would then use that money to buy a level of coverage that meets MY needs and invest the rest of it. I have no idea what YOU would do, peterson.

I don't care if employers want to provide health care benefits,
but they should be treated as taxable income.

Or just eliminate the income tax, thereby solving that problem along with a host of others.

On 8/8/2014 10:13 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:40:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

No subsidies?? Rates are about to double for most holders of private policies.

All policies are private.

Millions of policies were cancelled late last year and many of those affected couldn't afford the new policies.

Fiction. The percentage of canceled policies was small, and they were
canceled because they were poor quality. And subsidies are available
to those who can't afford policies.



Actually NO. My father (R.I.P.) lost his health insurance because of the
ACA... (it was considered a cadillac plan, company dropped it rather
than pay the extra) We are still trying to figure out what was/is owed
under medicare for his final hospital expenses.



Workers who have been cut to part time lost access to group insurance.

Again, largely fiction. However, that's not a bad thing. One of the
best things that could happen in the long run is eliminating the
connection between employers and health care.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I don't think so. But then, I consider it the responsibility of
society to ensure that everyone has reasonable health care.

Society? You meant to say "government," correct? Also what is "reasonable health care." The insured and the insurer should get to decide what is reasonable to each.

I consider them essentially equivalent in a democratic system.

I consider reasonable health care to mean free access to any treatment
for serious conditions.

I don't believe there should be private insurers for primary medical
coverage, nor that people should be able to opt out of certain
coverages.


And the money to pay those subsidies comes from whom, ultimately?

From where it should: those who have the resources to provide it.

Ah, there we have it... you are a socialist!

As are you, since you advocate that the government steal from its
citizens to pay for the military!

It is my business, because under the current system people who receive
their insurance from their employers are being subsidized by those who
don't.

No, they are not. Each employee enrolled under a group plan costs the employer about twice what the employee would have to pay for an individual policy with similar coverage. The employee gets a "discount" from the individual premium, but the employer would be in a position to pay the cost of the insurance it pays FOR the employee, TO the employee in lieu of offering insurance as a benefit.

An untaxed benefit.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 08:32:29 -0400, AM wrote:

Actually NO. My father (R.I.P.) lost his health insurance because of the
ACA... (it was considered a cadillac plan, company dropped it rather
than pay the extra) We are still trying to figure out what was/is owed
under medicare for his final hospital expenses.

I didn't say it didn't happen. What I said is that it only affected a
small percentage of people. No system is perfect, and the ACA is
seriously flawed. But an improvement over what we had before. I hope
it's just a first step towards a single payer system.

On 2014-08-09, AM wrote:
Actually NO. My father (R.I.P.) lost his health insurance because of the
ACA... (it was considered a cadillac plan, company dropped it rather
than pay the extra)


The charge for cadillac plans doesn't go into effect untill 2018. If
your fathers plan was dropped, the ACA wasn't responsible, and the
company lied about it. As happened a lot.

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 9:40:27 AM UTC-5, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On 2014-08-09, AM wrote:

Actually NO. My father (R.I.P.) lost his health insurance because of the

ACA... (it was considered a cadillac plan, company dropped it rather

than pay the extra)





The charge for cadillac plans doesn't go into effect untill 2018. If

your fathers plan was dropped, the ACA wasn't responsible, and the

company lied about it. As happened a lot.

There is a lot of misinformation about the ACA being bandied about. Real information is available at many websites. My favorite is the Kaiser family Foundation: http://kff.org/

Uncahealth