(09-25-2013 08:38 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Fair enough. We're on the same page here. My "criticism" is/was aimed at those on the left that took, and some amazingly still take, the CBO report as Gospel based on the garbage assumptions given it by congress. There is no way what they tried to portray was ever going to pan out. That's really what I was driving at.

I agree that we are. My comments were actually stated the way the were kind of tongue and cheek.

I don't think anyone read the last five pages of the CBO report. To me, they are perhaps a subtle, but nevertheless a devastating, attack on Obamacare.

Quote:If CBO then went on to make their own assessments based in reality and not from fairy dust and unicorn farts then good for them. I honestly didn't know they had that latitude, only knew they had to go on what info was handed to them, sane or not.

They don't have that kind of latitude. Congress feeds them the assumptions and they crunch the numbers. That they went so far to criticize the assumptions in this case was remarkable.

A "subsidy for one is a tax burden for another.

'Nuff said.

(09-25-2013 10:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 08:38 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Fair enough. We're on the same page here. My "criticism" is/was aimed at those on the left that took, and some amazingly still take, the CBO report as Gospel based on the garbage assumptions given it by congress. There is no way what they tried to portray was ever going to pan out. That's really what I was driving at.

I agree that we are. My comments were actually stated the way the were kind of tongue and cheek.

I don't think anyone read the last five pages of the CBO report. To me, they are perhaps a subtle, but nevertheless a devastating, attack on Obamacare.

Quote:If CBO then went on to make their own assessments based in reality and not from fairy dust and unicorn farts then good for them. I honestly didn't know they had that latitude, only knew they had to go on what info was handed to them, sane or not.

They don't have that kind of latitude. Congress feeds them the assumptions and they crunch the numbers. That they went so far to criticize the assumptions in this case was remarkable.

Ha. Okay, then I'm not completely losing my mind. Didn't think so, and had never seen it prior.
Good for them to actually call a lie a lie.

(09-25-2013 08:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obamacare Premiums Report Shows Low Prices For Uninsured With Wide Variation

Quote:The average price for basic health coverage purchased on health insurance exchanges created by President Barack Obama's health care reform law will be $249 a month, not counting subsidies, in 48 states reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a government report published Wednesday.

The health insurance exchanges, marketplaces for uninsured people and consumers who don't get health benefits from their employers, are scheduled to launch on Oct. 1 for an enrollment period that runs through the end of March for 2014 coverage. This latest analysis of what the health insurance plans will cost comes just six days before people will be able to find out what they'll actually pay.

"For millions of Americans, these new options will finally make health insurance work within their budget," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Reporters were provided access to the report prior to its publication.

That's great, as far as it goes, but what about when all the new uninsured, when their employer drop them like a bag of dirt, crash the system?

What the hell are you talking about? Your employer doesn't manage your health care plan, the insurance companies do. These same companies are offering the plans in the exchanges. And adding currently uninsured people to the exchanges should only lower costs further as the insurance companies will be competing for these new customers.

What the hell are you talking about? My insurance doesn't manage my health care; my doctor and I do.

Sorry, I left of the word plan. I added it above.

(09-25-2013 06:58 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Single payer would indicate that I'm not paying for someone else's healthcare.

Dems would never go for that and if you believe that they are, you are a moron.

Single payer is ONLY ONE PAYER FOR EVERYONE

that one payer would be the federal gvmt.

(09-26-2013 12:50 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 06:58 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Single payer would indicate that I'm not paying for someone else's healthcare.

Dems would never go for that and if you believe that they are, you are a moron.

Single payer is ONLY ONE PAYER FOR EVERYONE

that one payer would be the federal gvmt.

I understand what it is, but wanted to show how intentionally inaccurate the name is.

Thanks for proving my point.