Florida State Seminoles

[Owlman]

it doesn't surprise me in the least that Sean Hannity would have people playing fast and loose with the facts on a particular subject

My point in posting that article is that with a little research, Hannity should have been able to find someone who's cost are going to increase under the ACA. To go 0 for 3 speaks of intent to lie or indifference to presenting lies or extreme laziness on the part of his producers

[Owlman]

I guess it's going to depend on if they go by the salary I pay myself or what my company (which is just me) makes...

Income is determined by income tax. You can't use the calculator for a business which has different subsidies. It probably would be cheaper to use the company to provide you insurance so that it is a write-off (if you make enough of course for a write-off).

Hell, my roommate has about 4000 units of real estate, either apartments or single family homes. His income has never been above $30,000.

By the way, as a 45 year old smoker at 27893, his premium would be $2,512. Of course, his cars are leased by his company. Most costs are run through his company. etc.

[eCat]

it doesn't surprise me in the least that Sean Hannity would have people playing fast and loose with the facts on a particular subject

My point in posting that article is that with a little research, Hannity should have been able to find someone who's cost are going to increase under the ACA. To go 0 for 3 speaks of intent to lie or indifference to presenting lies or extreme laziness on the part of his producers

you're assuming someone who watches his show would care

[Owlman]

That's sadly true.

[eCat]

I am having trouble reconciling "income too high for subsidies" with "factoring in subsidies"

It would be if he didn't put the word unless in the sentence, which he did. It's pretty straight forward. You get a subsidy unless your income is too high for subsidies. So factoring in subsidies unless your income is 400% above the poverty rate. Is 400% too low for you?

To claim that everyone will win under Obamacare and that it will not raise the deficit is the biggest lie out there.

What??? Who said that? It certainly wasn't in the article. Not something I've ever said. Everybody will win? The President didn't say that. As for it not raising the deficit, the CBO has on multiple occasions estimated that it will not raise the deficit. I accept that your opinion is different, but as for it being a trustworthy prediction, I'll go with the CBO.

actually he did, in his own way

lets start with "if you want to stay with your insurance you can"

I can't - my company doesn't offer it anymore due to cost, Hedge can't because his old insurance plan didn't meet all the mandates of the ACA and now it appears that he's going to have to go with a more expensive one.

The next is the "an average of $2500 per family" which certainly implies that everyone would see reduced, if not , at a minimum, static costs with health care. While there is no doubt that some people will see a $2500 reduced cost (at the taxpayers expense - rationalize that however you want) , its not going to be across the board and he's certainly done nothing to prevent health care increases for those outside the scope of what the ACA intended.

As for the deficit, does the CBO have a history of accurate cost projections?

[Owlman]

That doesn't equate with everybody is a winner. For most people, they can stay on their insurance. But either way, doesn't mean everybody is a winner. AS with everything that every govt does or refuses to do, federal, state, local, there are winners and losers.

[eCat]

That doesn't equate with everybody is a winner. For most people, they can stay on their insurance. But either way, doesn't mean everybody is a winner. AS with everything that every govt does or refuses to do, federal, state, local, there are winners and losers.

We'll see if that statement is true after 1 complete cycle. I doubt it will be and I'm not even sure its true now. And you and I both know if Obama got up and preached the "there will be winners and there will be losers" we wouldn't have the ACA.

[Owlman]

Have you heard anybody say that? Anybody say that repealing the ACA will cause winners and losers? Any politician say that decreasing taxes will create winners and losers? Reagan's so-called revenue neutral tax changes create winners and losers? It's true. But won't hear any politician say it. But that's a far cry from anyone saying that there will only be winners. I have not heard anybody say that either.

[sardis]

I guess it's going to depend on if they go by the salary I pay myself or what my company (which is just me) makes...

Income is determined by income tax. You can't use the calculator for a business which has different subsidies. It probably would be cheaper to use the company to provide you insurance so that it is a write-off (if you make enough of course for a write-off).

Hell, my roommate has about 4000 units of real estate, either apartments or single family homes. His income has never been above $30,000.

By the way, as a 45 year old smoker at 27893, his premium would be $2,512. Of course, his cars are leased by his company. Most costs are run through his company. etc.

Just this morning I was talking with one of my clients who owns a bunch of real estate, restaurants and television stations. Always has losses until he sells something. His net worth is over 50 million yet he gets the maximum subsidy because his tax return always shows a loss.

[Jungle Rat]

Who is Sean Hannity ?

[eCat]

Just heard a representative from Michigan say that people going to the exchange thinking they will see cheaper offerings than the low cost offerings on the market place last year will see a 40% increase in prices

[Jungle Rat]

Im gonna not pay the fine & see what happens

[eCat]

I can see why the USA was so desperate to bring Snowden in. He's killing our relationship with our allies right now.

[Owlman]

Flint, Mi: random zip 48503 $3,366 per year for individual making $50,000 smoker
Dearborn: 48126 $3,038 per year for individual making $50,000 non-smoker

[Owlman]

I can see why the USA was so desperate to bring Snowden in. He's killing our relationship with our allies right now.

It's amazing the problems he's caused. We all spy on one-another, but it's shouldn't be in your face

[Bklyn]

I can't believe any true American would applaud his actions. He's a trader bitch and I hope he has to spend the rest of his life in Putin's Russia.

[innocentbystander]

I think the right and the GOP would be best served to STOP talking about deadlines and gliches with the system....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-2 ... acare.html

There will be no deadlines as this is going forward whether it works or not. It doesn't make any difference that the system doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work, its probably never going to work properly (not for several years at least.) But that doesn't change the fact that is it LAW and for those who don't have insurance, they must pay a TAX.

That is really all the ACA is, a tax on people to buy something that they DON'T need to make things more affordable for old people who are not responsible to save enough of a nest egg for their lifelong health care.

For the President, he is just selling snake oil to the press about the web portal. Behind the scenes, he is laughing his fucking ass off. He doesn't give a damn that the system doesn't work. The only thing he cares about is this:

• I won re-election
• Fuck Mitt Romney
• I got my Law
• I win
• The GOP loses
• Ha ha
• Fuck them
• Fuck everyone else who has to use the portal
• I can keep my pride

That is basically it. The principle of the matter is more important than the functionality of the matter itself.

why would it be for old people?

because OLD PEOPLE go to the Doctor and put in claims. HUGE claims. So they are very expensive to insure. And this is all about making it cheaper for them because they vote.

its not about poor people. I was poor when I was 20, I never went to the Doctor. Ever. And I had a kick-ass health insurance policy. This is about old people taking more wealth from young people

[eCat]

I think the right and the GOP would be best served to STOP talking about deadlines and gliches with the system....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-2 ... acare.html

There will be no deadlines as this is going forward whether it works or not. It doesn't make any difference that the system doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work, its probably never going to work properly (not for several years at least.) But that doesn't change the fact that is it LAW and for those who don't have insurance, they must pay a TAX.

That is really all the ACA is, a tax on people to buy something that they DON'T need to make things more affordable for old people who are not responsible to save enough of a nest egg for their lifelong health care.

For the President, he is just selling snake oil to the press about the web portal. Behind the scenes, he is laughing his fucking ass off. He doesn't give a damn that the system doesn't work. The only thing he cares about is this:

• I won re-election
• Fuck Mitt Romney
• I got my Law
• I win
• The GOP loses
• Ha ha
• Fuck them
• Fuck everyone else who has to use the portal
• I can keep my pride

That is basically it. The principle of the matter is more important than the functionality of the matter itself.

why would it be for old people?

because OLD PEOPLE go to the Doctor and put in claims. HUGE claims. So they are very expensive to insure. And this is all about making it cheaper for them because they vote.

its not about poor people. I was poor when I was 20, I never went to the Doctor. Ever. And I had a kick-ass health insurance policy. This is about old people taking more wealth from young people

that still doesn't explain why its about them. Are you saying forcing young people to buy insurance covers the cost of old people? That might be true if old people were actually buying insurance in the exchange. They aren't.

[eCat]

I can't believe any true American would applaud his actions. He's a trader bitch and I hope he has to spend the rest of his life in Putin's Russia.

I'm glad he did it.

[eCat]

CBS News has uncovered a serious pricing problem with HealthCare.gov. It stems from the Obama administration's efforts to improve its health care website. A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance.

The administration announced it would provide a new "shop and browse" feature Sunday, but it's not giving consumers the real picture. In some cases, people could end up paying double of what they see on the website, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported Wednesday on "CBS This Morning."

Special Section: Obamacare Kicks Off
Marco Rubio: Postponing Obamacare mandate a "prudent approach"
How long can Obamacare survive with website woes?

As President Obama promises to fix HealthCare.gov, his administration is touting what it calls "improvements" in design, specifically a feature that allows you to "See Plans Now." White House press secretary Jay Carney has said, "Americans across the country can type in their zip code and shop and browse."

But CBS News has learned the new "shop and browse" feature often comes with the wrong price tags.

Industry analysts point to how the website lumps people only into two broad categories: "49 or under" and "50 or older."

Jonathan Wu is co-founder of Valuepenguin.com, a consumer finance website focusing on the impact of health care reform. His company has built a tool that provides quotes for plans on the federal exchange. He said it's "incredibly misleading for people that are trying to get a sense of what they're paying."

Prices for everyone in the 49-or-under group are based on what a 27-year-old would pay. In the 50-or-older group, prices are based on what a 50-year-old would pay.

CBS News ran the numbers for a 48-year-old in Charlotte, N.C., ineligible for subsidies. According to HealthCare.gov, she would pay $231 a month, but the actual plan on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina's website costs $360, more than 50 percent higher. The difference: Blue Cross and Blue Shield requests your birthday before providing more accurate estimates.

The numbers for older Americans are even more striking. A 62-year-old in Charlotte looking for the same basic plan would get a price estimate on the government website of $394. The actual price is $634.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman said the government added the "shop and browse" feature to provide "estimates of premiums without tax credits."

Chini Krishnan is the chief executive officer of GetInsured.com. His company helped design California's new health-care-exchange website. It requires people to enter their birthdays to get a real price quote. Krishnan said, "It's important that the users have a proper, trustworthy, honest brand experience when they interact with HealthCare.gov, and I think providing accurate prices is an integral component of that."

Industry executives CBS News spoke with could not believe the government is providing these estimates, which they said were useless and could easily mislead consumers. They also said that the website repeatedly states the actual prices could be lower, but it makes no mention that they could be higher.