This was the only real danger here: that enough Republicans had convinced themselves there actions couldn’t have any consequences (because Obama is a liar, there was no chance of default, and anyway a default wouldn’t be a bad thing) that they wouldn’t see reason. Fortunately most of them had at least a tiny clue of what was going on.
They (the uninsured) were already getting handouts by getting free medical care at emergency rooms- courtesy of folks like you and me who have insurance. The subsidies courtesy of the ACA will cost folks like us far, far less money than the ridiculous last-minute but free fear-care at emergency rooms, because (a) they will actually go to doctors before medical conditions are advanced to the point that they are very expensive to treat, and because (b) they will actually be contributing to the system in the form of co-pays and whatnot, including many that are lucky enough not to get sick.
I want the uninsured to cost me less money. The ACA helps by insuring them- they will cost me, and the rest of the American people, less money.
And only the formerly uninsured will be getting handouts from the government, under Obamacare, right? No one else?
Call me crazy, but if Republicans didn’t like the ACA when it was proposed, perhaps they could have come up with some ideas of their own and negotiated. Of course in that hypothetical I’m pretending the individual mandate wasn’t their idea in the first place.
The subsidies get paid to insurance companies, not policy holders. If anyone is getting a handout, it is the insurance companies. Don’t worry, lazy po’ folk aren’t getting any handouts.
Stupid games. The money gets paid, directly, to the policy holder. He spends it on the premiums. It’s like saying that the food stamps get paid to the supermarkets, not to the people.
Hooking up more and more people to the government handouts. That’s the American way.
You have been misinformed. Subsidies get paid directly to the insurance companies, not the policy holders.
Stupid games. The subsidies can be taken as tax credit, claimed on 1099, payable directly to the person.
Nope. You are wrong, again. But I don’t care if you persist in that delusion, others eschew ignorance and appreciate facts untainted by ideological spin.
Let me fight your ignorance:
Take the credit as a lump sum when you file taxes. You can wait until you file your federal taxes and take the premium assistance credit as a lump sum. In that case you will pay the full cost of your health insurance premium to your health insurer each month. Then, when you file your federal taxes, you will claim the credit as a lump sum to reduce your tax liability.
IIRC, there are additional subsidies, but the overall savings to myself and the American people as a whole are far greater than if the ACA was not passed.
I’m glad to see that you agree, at least, that the ACA is doing some good by getting rid of the old last-minute emergency room fear-care that was costing us lots and lots of money. Now we can work together to make the bill better- perhaps some of the additional subsidies which don’t go to the uninsured are unnecessary, and there may be other ways to ensure that everyone has health care while minimizing cost.
Great job, America!
So - millions more of US citizens are getting government handouts. Just like I said.
While I am also against the increased handouts and support the effort to keep fighting the good fight - that ship sailed a long time ago unfortunately. What is new and particularly bad is the ability to force the purchase of a service, or tax the non-activity. That is unprecedented and shitty. Congress should no more be able to force people to purchase insurance than they are able to force people to purchase broccoli. SCOTUS disagrees with me - also unfortunately.
Do you have auto insurance?
You cite is incorrect. Let me fight their ignorance, from the healthcare.gov website:
A fair number of people weren’t willing to find out what’s in the bill *after *it passed, either. They’ll need to find out by experience instead. And even then some still won’t get it.
But the total “handout expenditure” will be far less, because of those previous (and massive) “hidden handouts” in the form of free emergency room care for the uninsured that boosted our bills. Just like I said.
The ACA = less money going out in handouts. A very conservative proposition.
Your cite says exactly what my cite says. How is my cite “incorrect”, exactly? Or maybe you are confused about what the meanings of the words “can” and “may” are in your cite?
-
It is far from obvious that the total will be “far less”. Every government program promises efficiencies. Almost every one fails and in the end costs many times more than projected.
-
There are all kinds of ways you can save money. For example, if the government mandates that there are only 5 models of vehicles that should be manufactured instead of hundreds, and that they should be redesigned every 5 years instead of yearly, the savings would be huge. Would you support this on the basis that it would save money?
The policy holder pays only the difference between premium minus the subsidy. The subsidy gets paid to the insurance company. There is no “lump sum” that gets paid to the policyholder…