The HCRA

[me]

Funny how I didn't hear you squalling about the exact same bullshite being done by the repugnicans.

We're we 16 trillion or more in debt?  How do you know I wasn't squalling about it? 

[Exterminator]

I don't have a pet.

I meant "you" in the generic sense for anyone worried about veterinary health care costs.

[The Troll]

Here are a couple more things that could have been cut.   $27 million to the country of Morocco to teach the folks over there how to make pottery and $1.5 million to the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston to study why many lesbian Americans are overweight.  Real important stuff there huh?   

  They ought to add to the study, why is there so many fat ass Teabilly Republican broads.     

[Palehorse]

We're we 16 trillion or more in debt?  How do you know I wasn't squalling about it?

You mean you weren't pontificating before a minority was sitting in the oval office? Really?! 

[Y]

...Dog owner Lori Heiselman was surprised where her veterinarian posted a warning on Facebook.

The notice read: "Because medical equipment and supplies will be going up in cost, that extra expense will have to passed on to the customers."...

...Why the increase? Its part of a new 2.3-percent federal excise tax on certain medical devices that just went into effect. The tax will help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, intended for people, not pets. Manufacturers pay the tax, but a recent survey found more than half plan to pass it along...

That's what I was saying elsewhere.  Us bottom feeders have to pay because our capitalistic economic system is set up where the vet and the manufacturers take those costs as deductions and then also pass them off onto us - we get screwed both ways.

It's not going to change until us bottom feeders take control of both the government and the economy and throw out this corruption of both.

Oh and by the way, though you're trying your best to make this about 'Obamacare', you're way off the mark because you don't understand the issues at work here.

[me]

You mean you weren't pontificating before a minority was sitting in the oval office? Really?! 

The debt wasn't that high, unemployment was under 5%, businesses were not closing at the rate they are now and I can go on and on but it's pointless because you just won't see it.  Have you been to the grocery store lately or put gas in your vehicle? 

[The Troll]

The debt wasn't that high, unemployment was under 5%, businesses were not closing at the rate they are now and I can go on and on but it's pointless because you just won't see it.  Have you been to the grocery store lately or put gas in your vehicle?

  What don't you Baby Cakes get that oil and gas prices are set by the world market.    That's the way things work in a Capitalist country America. 

  Also Baby Cakes food prices would be a lot higher if the government didn't give money in farm support to the farmers. 

  Forget it Baby Cakes, you can't blame high gas and food prices on Obama.   

[me]

CNN: Say, Did the White House Mislead Us on the Costs of Obamacare?

    Guy Benson
    Guy Benson
    Political Editor, Townhall.com

Mar 28, 2013 10:21 AM EST

This report was prompted by two stories we've covered this week: (1) Kathleen Sebelius' belated admission that some Americans will, in fact, see their premiums rise due to the "Affordable" Care Act, and (2) the American Society of Actuaries' determination that insurers will see claim pay-outs on individual plans rise by 32 percent as a result of the law.  This wasn't how things were supposed to be, according to the administration's deeply dishonest sales pitch.  CNN aired this segment last night:



Yes, that report really included a clip of a White House lackey assailing a nonpartisan actuarial organization for rudely producing rigorous estimates that deviated from the president's preferred narrative.  Obama vs. math -- how thoroughly appropriate.  (Perhaps Obama's SuperPAC can run some ads accusing the bookkeepers of giving their numbers cancer. "These anti-women calculators are too extreme!").  In spite of the administration's churlish attacks, the professional accountants are standing by their politically- inconvenient numbers.  The concession from Sebelius is doubly notable because of her infamous 2010 threat against insurers who told the truth about Obamacare's impact on costs and premiums:


    Witness Kathleen Sebelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group—a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Services secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare and warned that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caracas. What Ms. Sebelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. ObamaCare includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents' plans until age 26 and "free" preventative care (i.e., no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers). The tone of Ms. Sebelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise. 


The HHS Secretary's updated line is a classic exercise in goalpost-moving and expectations management, an even starker example of which we covered over the weekend.  Out: Legislative perfection!  In: (Hopefully) not a "third-world experience!"

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/03/28/cnn-say-were-we-lied-to-about-the-costs-of-obamacare-n1551196

Notice this is NOT Fox.  Now just remember if you put it in the TUZ like you have a lot of other stuff yer gonna be pretty busy takin' stuff out later.   

[Palehorse]

. . .There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.

The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent. . .

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/

[Palehorse]

. . .There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.

The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent. . .

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/

. . .Not much will be different as the law is put into place for those who get insurance through their employers, and that's the bulk of Americans. The Society of Actuaries/Lewin Group report estimates that those with employer-based insurance will decline by 2 million because of the law, for a total of 155 million people. That's similar to estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office.

However, new minimum benefit standards will mean more generous insurance plans for many of those who buy health coverage on their own on the individual market, which has been able to offer cheap, bare-bones plans. Plus, tens of millions of people will join this market through state-based exchanges — 21 million, according to the Lewin analysis. . . .

http://factcheck.org/2013/04/insurance-premium-spin/

So once again, we see repugnicans using the "sky is falling" ploy, trying to scare the panties off "Mericans" , the majority of which will see a minimal increase, if any at all, in premiums. 

[me]

. . .There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.

The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent. . .

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/

Notice that's dated 2012.  " Kathleen Sebelius' belated admission that some Americans will, in fact, see their premiums rise due to the "Affordable" Care Act,".  I would think she knows what she's talking about. 

[Palehorse]

Notice that's dated 2012.  " Kathleen Sebelius' belated admission that some Americans will, in fact, see their premiums rise due to the "Affordable" Care Act,".  I would think she knows what she's talking about.

Notice my information is dated 2013. . . some Americans does not equate to all, nor even most. Scare tactics. The fact is, those who will see the highest increases are those who are not within group plans. (And before you go down that path let me reiterate that the healthcare exchanges being set up will utilize group plans as participation increases.)

[me]

So you're saying Sebelius is wrong? 

[Palehorse]

So you're saying Sebelius is wrong?

Show me where I said that?

What I am saying is your post / position is attempting to take the statement and eliminate the word "some" entirely and thereby inferring all will see this result. That is scare tactics, plain and simple; especially when one considers the majority of Americans will not see such an impact.

[me]

Show me where I said that?

What I am saying is your post / position is attempting to take the statement and eliminate the word "some" entirely and thereby inferring all will see this result. That is scare tactics, plain and simple; especially when one considers the majority of Americans will not see such an impact.

I just posted what CNN reported pointing out that all isn't as it was stated it would be after all. 

The concession from Sebelius is doubly notable because of her infamous 2010 threat against insurers who told the truth about Obamacare's impact on costs and premiums:

[/b]