Obamacare backers fund study that finds Obamacare will increase insurance premiums

K

kirstyyy :)

New member
by 30-40% on pretty much everybody.

Yes but obviously it's a scam study funded by Obama-hating RAAAAACISTS from the Heritage Foundation.
...or not.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/06/whoops-obamacare-backers-in-wi
 
We've already seen huge increases due to Obamacare. Hell, we've seen the nuraber of Individual healthcare options in california cut by more than 50%, benefits have been cut dramatically.
 
I'm sure someone did mention it. Who cares? Everyone will have insurance (unless they opt out, that is). Why does everything have to boil down to whether or not it makes YOUR life easier? Balancing the good of the individual with the good of society is the reason we don't have, and shouldn't have, direct democracy.

You know what? I'd like to keep the money I paid into Social Security and Medicare since 2009; my grandparents are all dead and I don't know as any of them ever really relied on those subsidies to pay for their retirement costs anyway. But if I believe the rabid (though sadly inaccurate) defense of "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT AWAY FROM MY MEDICARE", and the panic about how to keep millions of retirees from losing their homes, there are apparently a lot of people who do benefit from SS and MC. So maybe I should shut up and try to console myself that at least that money isn't being used to pay Blackwater to kill Arabs.
 
California has different problems than most of the US. If your benefits were cut, it was most likely to bring them back in line with reality. You people seem to think your state can afford to do everything for everyone using other people's money. Doesn't work that way.
 
Not everyone is going to have insurance. And balancing the arabitions of public servants with individual rights is the reason we have rule of law and property rights and, in theory, a federal government limited by the Constitution. You don't get to just take whatever you like from whomever you like and redistribute it, because you think it's "good for society" (leaving aside whether it, in fact, even is).

I would be happy enough forfeiting everything I put into the system so far in order to opt out of future taxes and benefits. Instead, I could put that 15% of my income to work for me in the market and actually have a retirement. But I don't get that choice, do I.
 
Because I'm not an altruist, and unless you donate everything you have and earn to others neither are you. Since you've paid to keep a volkswagen on the road I know you don't live on a shoe string to feed the poor so fuck off with that.

Everything boils down to whether or not it makes my life easier because that's my goal, just like you.
Fuck that balancing act. If even ONE person in the process makes decisions based on what's best for them the whole altruistic house of carRAB collapses.

Since any large group of people will contain AT LEAST one selfish asshole let's live in the real world and agree/admit that voting to spend tax dollars based on "what's best for everyone" is idiotic.

That, by the way, completely ignores the argument about who gets to decide what's "best" for the majority.

In the real world we make laws based on what best motivates individuals to engage in actions we approve of. More of that and less of "best for everyone" and we might have fewer problems.
 
Eight out of nine people will pay more, before subsidies. After subsidies, three out of five people will still pay more, and that doesn't account for the cost of subsidies, which merely hidden from the end user.

Three out of five is not just "some people". Eight out of nine is definitely not just "some people".
 
Oddly enough we've had to reduce our rates on a lot of our group business because of the new MLR regs.

With that said, i'm pretty sure we'll end up losing our ass on it and have to jack them back up next year or the year after.
 
Back
Top