Government shutdown

[Jaydublin]

Nonetheless, based on the information that you so far have provided guys on this forum do NOT really know your particulars very well to understand why you may have been one of those who was potentially more negatively affected by these changes than others or whether your situation is representative of a major problem that needs to be addressed. Accordingly, we have to speculate about your circumstances in order to agree with you, that you were screwed, if that is true?.

I want to first say I am pretty fair when it comes to judging politicians or policies, even if I disagree with them. I cant tell you how many times I've had to take up for Obama(and Bush) because somebody said he lied about this or that.

Having said that, When it comes to the ACA I never bump into personal positive story. I've read so many negative experiences and normally I see the other side of the coin but on this I'm really not seeing it. Not from friends, family(democrats), FB friends(lots of liberals), comments in any articles I read(pos and neg). When it comes to my family and FB friends I heard and saw nothing but support over the last few years but nobody I know seems to have an experience where it helped them. I just keep seeing how plans are lost, deductibles go up, premiums go up.

I have friends who would follow Obama into a fire and they don't even have much to say. Maybe I am missing it. Very possible.

 

[JayJuanGee]

This is mainly @ JJG but anyone else feel free to put their opinion in... Just please don't write a book lol

If sacrificing and lowering the debt through raising taxes, BIG spending cuts, bringing troops home from more than just the Middle East, possible default etc etc(feel free to throw in other ideas). is not the answer to coming out of this then WHAT? What is the answer? Obviously what I wrote would send us into a bad depression, immediately. I know this as much as anyone else so we don't need to debate this. The only discussion could be the length of time or if it is necessary to go this route. The only reason people with my opinion don't mind the consequences of cuts/taxes is because we feel the consequences are coming anyway and they will only be worse as the imbalances grow larger. You already know this about us, I just don't want it to seem like I/we see a depression as a positive thing in general.

If we just continue on this path what happens down the road in the opinion of people like JJG and some of you other guys who have recently joined in? Do we slowly grow and eventually run a surplus... then pay down the debt over the course of a few decades with the surplus and some help from the FEDs target inflation rate? Or what? I'd like to know how people see this going away without a rebalancing sacrifice?

I'm only asking because I don't think anybody has explained how the problem goes away without huge sacrifices by everyday Americans, the kind our grandparents and great grandparents can tell us about. I only hear that government debt doesn't matter and that cuts would be bad.... and they sure would be serious pain for a few years.

I rambled.. so in two sentences, under our current path where does this lead? Do we slowly grow into a surplus and pay it down, or does the world let us run it up 3+ more decades?

JDub:

I don't know what good it does for me to go through your various questions in detail b/c I believe that I already sufficiently answered variations of these questions in a fairly repetitive and lengthy ways through various other posts in this thread. I sense that you do NOT really want some kind of meaningful dialogue regarding the topics of your questions. It seems that you already have a sense for my answers to the questions, since you are cautioning me on length.. which I appreciate b/c I do NOT want to write any lengthy post, here.

And, really what does it matter what I think about how to go about this investment in the american people theme that I have been espousing? And, really maybe another thread should be started for such questions -especially how it relates to the manosphere and game? I really am unclear about how that all plays out, but I know that those various ideas were being convoluted in earlier parts of this thread, and several guys had much different ideas from me... especially when it comes to taking away woman's vote... .. and I am NOT sure how those kinds of ideas play out in a vision of an economically recovered america.

But in essence, your questions seem to imply various results or outcomes that seem much too complicated in connection with the scenario that I am describing. I think that america has plenty of money and resources and to act as if social programs our draining this country of our prosperity is fantastical thinking... from my current perspective.

I am saying that america got to this stage of our really bad economy b/c wealthy people - a combination of republicans and democrats either put us here or went along with us getting to this place where we are at.... which started around the 80s, but got much worse in more recent times , probably even worse in the past 12 years, including under the Obama administration. There has been a certain level of running infrastructure and social programs into the ground and wasteful diversion of that money to military systems that are NOT necessary. Maybe some of this corruption stems from post 911 psychology.. but there were these kinds of problems, even before that.

The revision to our thinking and our investments are much too complicated for me to outline in any short posting - in this thread... but in general, we may NOT need to spend that much extra in order to change priorities and in order to get economic stimulus that goes towards infrastructure, people and away from providing that money to rich people who do NOT deserve it nor tend to spend it..

In my thinking, it seems that appropriate and diversified stimulus that goes towards people will cause expansion of the economy and generation of revenues in order to lessen debt and deficits if that is what is desired..

 

[Tail Gunner]

Nonetheless, based on the information that you so far have provided guys on this forum do NOT really know your particulars very well to understand why you may have been one of those who was potentially more negatively affected by these changes than others or whether your situation is representative of a major problem that needs to be addressed. Accordingly, we have to speculate about your circumstances in order to agree with you, that you were screwed, if that is true?.

Why on God's green earth would you need to know the particulars? I purchased health insurance in the free market. I was quite happy with it.

VaginaCare eliminated my health care plan and forced me into a non-free-market for healthcare. Now I must pay more than double for a similar plan.

I no longer pay market rates, but inflated rates. I no longer pay for just myself, but also for another (subsidized) person. So, of course I was screwed!

This is not rocket science.

 

[Jaydublin]

JJG.. Become a politician, you are a natural. You dodge questions with lengthy pointless responses like I've never seen. Ignore the post if you choose, its fine. Or just say "its too complicated to outline" That is all you need to do.

You mentioned that you have answered those questions already. I have been through most of this thread and don't recall you or anyone else on your side of the camp ever addressing how these imbalances will go away.

And I do agree that America does have plenty of money and resources.... but apparently it isn't enough because our current standard of living is running us roughly 1 trillion $ deficits per year.

Also, I hope you were not confusing whoever made the women voting comment with me... I'm pretty sure I never said that. I joke about that at times but only in person and don't truly believe that is a serious solution to the fixing imbalances. Why you decided to bring it up I will never know..... or you could explain to me in 5+ paragraphs.. haha jk jk

 

[JayJuanGee]

Nonetheless, based on the information that you so far have provided guys on this forum do NOT really know your particulars very well to understand why you may have been one of those who was potentially more negatively affected by these changes than others or whether your situation is representative of a major problem that needs to be addressed. Accordingly, we have to speculate about your circumstances in order to agree with you, that you were screwed, if that is true?.

Why on God's green earth would you need to know the particulars? I purchased health insurance in the free market. I was quite happy with it.

VaginaCare eliminated my health care plan and forced me into a non-free-market for healthcare. Now I must pay more than double for a similar plan.




I no longer pay market rates, but inflated rates. I no longer pay for just myself, but also for another (subsidized) person. So, of course I was screwed!

This is not rocket science.

You are making an assertion and then you are generalizing a conclusion that is meant to apply to others and then you want your audience to agree with your conclusion

Surely, some people may agree with you without such details; however, I do NOT understand your situation sufficiently to come to the same conclusion... I do NOT even know what state you are in.. or your approximate age and/or health condition or your previous plan as compared with the new plan.

In that regard, details seem to be important and potentially helpful to understand the situation better whether on earth or NOT.

 

[Tail Gunner]

Nonetheless, based on the information that you so far have provided guys on this forum do NOT really know your particulars very well to understand why you may have been one of those who was potentially more negatively affected by these changes than others or whether your situation is representative of a major problem that needs to be addressed. Accordingly, we have to speculate about your circumstances in order to agree with you, that you were screwed, if that is true?.

Why on God's green earth would you need to know the particulars? I purchased health insurance in the free market. I was quite happy with it.

VaginaCare eliminated my health care plan and forced me into a non-free-market for healthcare. Now I must pay more than double for a similar plan.




I no longer pay market rates, but inflated rates. I no longer pay for just myself, but also for another (subsidized) person. So, of course I was screwed!

This is not rocket science.

You are making an assertion and then you are generalizing a conclusion that is meant to apply to others and then you want your audience to agree with your conclusion

Surely, some people may agree with you without such details; however, I do NOT understand your situation sufficiently to come to the same conclusion... I do NOT even know what state you are in.. or your approximate age and/or health condition or your previous plan as compared with the new plan.

In that regard, details seem to be important and potentially helpful to understand the situation better whether on earth or NOT.

Everything that you just stated is utterly irrelevant as a matter of logic.

Look up the definition of "arms length transaction": a transaction in which willing buyers and willing sellers of a product or service act independently and have no relationship to each other.

I previously paid market rates for my insurance. I now pay government mandated rates. The government, because of its statist delusion it knows what is best for 300 million people, eliminated the free market.

I now pay more than twice as much for my insurance, because I now pay for myself as well as for another subsidized person. After all, that was the main purpose of VaginaCare -- to insure the uninsured.

Obama promised that no one would lose their health insurance. Obama promised that no one's rates would rise. He lied.

The fact that I was previously paying the market rate eliminates the need to know anything else about my situation. We know the benchmark. Anything else is irrelevant.

By 14-to-1, more people have lost health insurance than gained it due to Obamacare. Millions more will lose coverage next year.

To offset the 7 million who have lost their individual insurance policies, the total enrollees in Obamacare plans — state and federal combined — are a mere 364,000 through November. Add about 100,000 more enrollees in the first half of December, and it’s still a 14-1 ratio of people losing insurance compared to those gaining insurance. Plus taxpayers must pick up the tab for over 800,000 who have signed up for the expansion of Medicaid that was part of Obamacare.

http://communities.washingtontimes....are-puts-insurance-coverage-reverse-14-1-mar/

 

[Jaydublin]

Nonetheless, based on the information that you so far have provided guys on this forum do NOT really know your particulars very well to understand why you may have been one of those who was potentially more negatively affected by these changes than others or whether your situation is representative of a major problem that needs to be addressed. Accordingly, we have to speculate about your circumstances in order to agree with you, that you were screwed, if that is true?.

Why on God's green earth would you need to know the particulars? I purchased health insurance in the free market. I was quite happy with it.

VaginaCare eliminated my health care plan and forced me into a non-free-market for healthcare. Now I must pay more than double for a similar plan.




I no longer pay market rates, but inflated rates. I no longer pay for just myself, but also for another (subsidized) person. So, of course I was screwed!

This is not rocket science.

You are making an assertion and then you are generalizing a conclusion that is meant to apply to others and then you want your audience to agree with your conclusion

Surely, some people may agree with you without such details; however, I do NOT understand your situation sufficiently to come to the same conclusion... I do NOT even know what state you are in.. or your approximate age and/or health condition or your previous plan as compared with the new plan.

In that regard, details seem to be important and potentially helpful to understand the situation better whether on earth or NOT.

All the details you need are that he and a business went into a responsible and legal agreement they both saw beneficial for themselves and then the federal government stepped in and forced them to cancel the agreement as well as force him to make a new agreement that he did not want and possibly can't afford.

I don't understand why the other details matter. It is quite simple. Does something change if he is 60 years old, has a heart condition, and lives in Nebraska?

What if he is 45, beat prostate cancer at age 40, and is a Puerto Rican living in NYC.... Does that somehow change what I described in the first paragraph?

 

[JayJuanGee]

By 14-to-1, more people have lost health insurance than gained it due to Obamacare. Millions more will lose coverage next year.

To offset the 7 million who have lost their individual insurance policies, the total enrollees in Obamacare plans — state and federal combined — are a mere 364,000 through November. Add about 100,000 more enrollees in the first half of December, and it’s still a 14-1 ratio of people losing insurance compared to those gaining insurance. Plus taxpayers must pick up the tab for over 800,000 who have signed up for the expansion of Medicaid that was part of Obamacare.

http://communities.washingtontimes....are-puts-insurance-coverage-reverse-14-1-mar/

That would be really fucked up if it were true.

I mean if the Govt passed a law that caused fewer people to be covered... From my understanding, the intent of the law was to expand coverage by about 30 million or more... something like that.

I'm NOT going to argue with you about whether details matter. I stated that I do NOT understand your situation without more details, and you stated that you believe that further details are irrelevant. O.k. fine. Go ahead.

You detail liberated guys can go ahead and agree amongst yourselves about the perils of TG's situation and I will abstain b/c I do NOT want to flounder in such a theoretical realm.

 

[Jaydublin]

By 14-to-1, more people have lost health insurance than gained it due to Obamacare. Millions more will lose coverage next year.

To offset the 7 million who have lost their individual insurance policies, the total enrollees in Obamacare plans — state and federal combined — are a mere 364,000 through November. Add about 100,000 more enrollees in the first half of December, and it’s still a 14-1 ratio of people losing insurance compared to those gaining insurance. Plus taxpayers must pick up the tab for over 800,000 who have signed up for the expansion of Medicaid that was part of Obamacare.

http://communities.washingtontimes....are-puts-insurance-coverage-reverse-14-1-mar/

That would be really fucked up if it were true.

I mean if the Govt passed a law that caused fewer people to be covered... From my understanding, the intent of the law was to expand coverage by about 30 million or more... something like that.

Since when does government pass legislation that does what it was intended to do? Especially in the case of 2,000-3,000 page bills.

Not that I am backing those numbers, I have no idea if 14:1 is correct... surely it wont be that bad... I put my experience at the bottom of the last page. People I know are keeping or getting new coverage, just paying more for it.

 

[GameTheory]

the ACA has guaranteed Obama's place in history....

 

[Tail Gunner]

By 14-to-1, more people have lost health insurance than gained it due to Obamacare. Millions more will lose coverage next year.

To offset the 7 million who have lost their individual insurance policies, the total enrollees in Obamacare plans — state and federal combined — are a mere 364,000 through November. Add about 100,000 more enrollees in the first half of December, and it’s still a 14-1 ratio of people losing insurance compared to those gaining insurance. Plus taxpayers must pick up the tab for over 800,000 who have signed up for the expansion of Medicaid that was part of Obamacare.

http://communities.washingtontimes....are-puts-insurance-coverage-reverse-14-1-mar/

I'm NOT going to argue with you about whether details matter. I stated that I do NOT understand your situation without more details, and you stated that you believe that further details are irrelevant. O.k. fine. Go ahead.

You detail liberated guys can go ahead and agree amongst yourselves about the perils of TG's situation and I will abstain b/c I do NOT want to flounder in such a theoretical realm.

There is nothing theoretical about it. You simply refuse to accept the obvious logic that personal details do not matter.

Let's say that I move into a new city. I need a barbershop. I call around and find the cheapest place in town that does a decent job. For years, I go to Sal's Barber Shop and I pay Sal $10 for a haircut.

Then one day, I walk into the barber shop and a gangster is bitch-slapping Sal and pointing a gun at him. It seems that a new mob boss is in town and demanding protection money. But Sal cannot afford it at present prices.

So the punk points the gun at me and says "Haircuts are now $20, everywhere in town." The free market is now out the window. How do details possibly matter? Does it matter whether I have light hair or dark hair? Whether I have dry hair or oily hair? Whether I use a comb or a brush?

That is ObamaCare. A mob boss stepped in and destroyed the free market. I now have a canceled insurance policy and I pay twice as much. It also happened to five million other people. My personal circumstances are irrelevant. I can't imagine that you fail to understand such a simple concept.

As Peregrene stated in an earlier post: "you can't get a man to understand something when his well-being depends on his not understanding it."

 

[Tail Gunner]

the ACA has guaranteed Obama's place in history....

That's pretty cool. Replace a man who never told a lie with a man who never told the truth.

Pretty much sums up our modern culture.

 

[JayJuanGee]

There is nothing theoretical about it. You simply refuse to accept the obvious logic that personal details do not matter.

Let's say that I move into a new city. I need a barbershop. I call around and find the cheapest place in town that does a decent job. For years, I go to Sal's Barber Shop and I pay Sal $10 for a haircut.

Then one day, I walk into the barber shop and a gangster is bitch-slapping Sal and pointing a gun at him. It seems that a new mob boss is in town and demanding protection money. But Sal cannot afford it at present prices.

So the punk points the gun at me and says "Haircuts are now $20, everywhere in town." The free market is now out the window. How do details possibly matter? Does it matter whether I have light hair or dark hair? Whether I have dry hair or oily hair? Whether I use a comb or a brush?

That is ObamaCare. A mob boss stepped in and destroyed the free market. I now have a canceled insurance policy and I pay twice as much. It also happened to five million other people. My personal circumstances are irrelevant. I can't imagine that you fail to understand such a simple concept.

As Peregrene stated in an earlier post: "you can't get a man to understand something when his well-being depends on his not understanding it."

Your points are all very logical and somewhat convincing, but lacking in known facts.

If there were any known facts, they are NOT being shared with guys reading this thread and known only by you, so why involve me in such a discussion?

If some guys here agree on relevant facts, that are only known by you, then go ahead and have such discussion with that information. If I were to participate in such a discussion, I would like to know some more details and context.

 

[Hotwheels]

That is ObamaCare. A mob boss stepped in and destroyed the free market. I now have a canceled insurance policy and I pay twice as much. It also happened to five million other people. My personal circumstances are irrelevant. I can't imagine that you fail to understand such a simple concept.

Oh, I'll put money down that he understands it.

He's just avoiding it.

And yes, I have had the same scenario happen myself as my rates have gone up significantly for the health coverage I pay for out of pocket.

Leave it to government to make something that was already overpriced doubly so.

 

[JayJuanGee]

That is ObamaCare. A mob boss stepped in and destroyed the free market. I now have a canceled insurance policy and I pay twice as much. It also happened to five million other people. My personal circumstances are irrelevant. I can't imagine that you fail to understand such a simple concept.

Oh, I'll put money down that he understands it.

He's just avoiding it.

And yes, I have had the same scenario happen myself as my rates have gone up significantly for the health coverage I pay for out of pocket.

Leave it to government to make something that was already overpriced doubly so.

Yes!!! It is too bad that this thread has seemed to take us to fantasy issues, rather than reality. Whether or NOT TG and HW have been negatively affected (we just need to take their word for it b/c they are NOT providing details).

One of the realities with QE, that guys, in this thread, keep bringing up and I agree the problematic nature of it is that the QE money is NOT going to people or to small businesses or to health care issues.

Instead, the benefits of QE is going to the wealthy, mostly banks, and the banks are sitting on that money. I think we could call that a form of capital strike. That money could be lent out to small businesses, home owners, even help regarding evening out health care expenses... but it is NOT.. the money just sits with the bank and the govt does NOT have enough power or guts to force the banks to make that money available in the economy.

These issues about health expansion costing some people more money are real side distraction to the real capital strike issues that we face. Obamacare is NOT the culprit.. and in fact, as I already mentioned earlier, it seems that Obamacare is probably one of the only areas in which capital has been ineffective in striking and there is expansion and stimulus of the economy in that narrow area (possibly holding up the rest of the economy). I would suggest that the negative affects on TG and HW (assuming that they are true) are mere symptoms of people getting screwed by the rich in other ways, including the capital strike that seems to be ongoing.

 

[Jaydublin]

One of the realities with QE, that guys, in this thread, keep bringing up and I agree the problematic nature of it is that the QE money is NOT going to people or to small businesses or to health care issues.

Instead, the benefits of QE is going to the wealthy, mostly banks, and the banks are sitting on that money. I think we could call that a form of capital strike. That money could be lent out to small businesses, home owners, even help regarding evening out health care expenses... but it is NOT.. the money just sits with the bank and the govt does NOT have enough power or guts to force the banks to make that money available in the economy.

These issues about health expansion costing some people more money are real side distraction to the real capital strike issues that we face. Obamacare is NOT the culprit.. and in fact, as I already mentioned earlier, it seems that Obamacare is probably one of the only areas in which capital has been ineffective in striking and there is expansion and stimulus of the economy in that narrow area (possibly holding up the rest of the economy). I would suggest that the negative affects on TG and HW (assuming that they are true) are mere symptoms of people getting screwed by the rich in other ways, including the capital strike that seems to be ongoing.

The people bitching about QE are bitching about QE itself... not that it is sitting in banks earning them .25%. If they do start loaning it out you better be ready for the price spikes of your fucking life!

What is so hard to believe. Akmost everybody I know has had their insurance price go up(prem or deductable).... and my whole family is democrats as well as probably half of my friends on FB, if they could defend it, they would. Actually, I can't even find anybody to defend this consequence of Obamacare, except you. The biggest Obamacare supporters I know have quickly stfu. I'm not bashing the whole program but its hilarious that you refuse to believe/accept that peoples premiums an deductibles have spiked.

 

[JayJuanGee]

One of the realities with QE, that guys, in this thread, keep bringing up and I agree the problematic nature of it is that the QE money is NOT going to people or to small businesses or to health care issues.

Instead, the benefits of QE is going to the wealthy, mostly banks, and the banks are sitting on that money. I think we could call that a form of capital strike. That money could be lent out to small businesses, home owners, even help regarding evening out health care expenses... but it is NOT.. the money just sits with the bank and the govt does NOT have enough power or guts to force the banks to make that money available in the economy.

These issues about health expansion costing some people more money are real side distraction to the real capital strike issues that we face. Obamacare is NOT the culprit.. and in fact, as I already mentioned earlier, it seems that Obamacare is probably one of the only areas in which capital has been ineffective in striking and there is expansion and stimulus of the economy in that narrow area (possibly holding up the rest of the economy). I would suggest that the negative affects on TG and HW (assuming that they are true) are mere symptoms of people getting screwed by the rich in other ways, including the capital strike that seems to be ongoing.

The people bitching about QE are bitching about QE itself... not that it is sitting in banks earning them .25%. If they do start loaning it out you better be ready for the price spikes of your fucking life!

What is so hard to believe. Akmost everybody I know has had their insurance price go up(prem or deductable).... and my whole family is democrats as well as probably half of my friends on FB, if they could defend it, they would. Actually, I can't even find anybody to defend this consequence of Obamacare, except you. The biggest Obamacare supporters I know have quickly stfu. I'm not bashing the whole program but its hilarious that you refuse to believe/accept that peoples premiums an deductibles have spiked.

I'm NOT defending anything - i was asking for facts - beyond, everyone I know says so.

And, if it is true that the costs of the ACA outweigh the benefits, then that would be a problem that needs to be corrected.

And, you may be correct that ACA is resulting, in some circumstances, to be an additional tax on regular people... more reason to fix that problem to cause the banks (who are holding onto our money) to pay for those increases.

At this point, I just don't have any facts, beyond various posters asserting that everyone says. I'm no fan of insurance companies gouging people.., if that is what is taking place.

Look if the facts are that some people are getting screwed, we may agree about that should NOT happen! We may NOT agree about the solution about how to get there or the extent to which the burden should be distributed. I tend to think that the insurance companies and banks need to absorb the extra costs, some of you guys seem to indicate that you think that women and or the poor should pay by NOT having medical insurance. I think that if a bunch of guys sat in a room, we could work out an agreement of some solution that works - so long as the banks and insurance companies are NOT calling the shots.

Now, let's go have a beer and pick up some hotties!

 

[Peregrine]

Yes!!! It is too bad that this thread has seemed to take us to fantasy issues, rather than reality. Whether or NOT TG and HW have been negatively affected (we just need to take their word for it b/c they are NOT providing details).

If you don't believe them now, why believe the details they provide? They could just make up some numbers.

One of the realities with QE, that guys, in this thread, keep bringing up and I agree the problematic nature of it is that the QE money is NOT going to people or to small businesses or to health care issues.

Instead, the benefits of QE is going to the wealthy, mostly banks, and the banks are sitting on that money. I think we could call that a form of capital strike. That money could be lent out to small businesses, home owners, even help regarding evening out health care expenses... but it is NOT.. the money just sits with the bank and the govt does NOT have enough power or guts to force the banks to make that money available in the economy.

Capital strike? Forcing banks to make money available? What is this nonsense?

Ever heard of free market capitalism?

And, if it is true that the costs of the ACA outweigh the benefits, then that would be a problem that needs to be corrected.

What's there to correct? The ACA is working exactly as intended. It's screwing guys like Tail Gunner to pay for the health insurance of the poor. Classic wealth transfer.

And, you may be correct that ACA is resulting, in some circumstances, to be an additional tax on regular people... more reason to fix that problem to cause the banks (who are holding onto our money) to pay for those increases.

Why should banks have to pay for those increases? And who are you referring to when you say "banks"? There are many in America.

Special bonus challenge: respond in 500 words or less.

 

[Jaydublin]

Look if the facts are that some people are getting screwed, we may agree about that should NOT happen! We may NOT agree about the solution about how to get there or the extent to which the burden should be distributed. I tend to think that the insurance companies and banks need to absorb the extra costs, some of you guys seem to indicate that you think that women and or the poor should pay by NOT having medical insurance. I think that if a bunch of guys sat in a room, we could work out an agreement of some solution that works - so long as the banks and insurance companies are NOT calling the shots.

Now, let's go have a beer and pick up some hotties!

The poor have insurance. There is another program for that. College kids and people like me were the ones without insurance. Its because we were too cheap or just were not concerned but we wont get into that again. We can agree to disagree there.

So if the government forces high prices on a business they should absorb it? Cmon man, do you really believe that? If it worked that way they would absorb it until they went bust because the government would take advantage. The majority of the price increase will ALWAYS be put on consumers.

 

[JayJuanGee]

The poor have insurance. There is another program for that. College kids and people like me were the ones without insurance. Its because we were too cheap or just were not concerned but we wont get into that again. We can agree to disagree there.

If the poor have insurance, what is the expected 30 million expansion? Is that all healthy people being forced into it? Maybe NOT all the poor had insurance? I thought that there were problems with the uninsured using emergency rooms, and ACA was supposed to help to get coverage to a large number of those people.

So if the government forces high prices on a business they should absorb it? Cmon man, do you really believe that? If it worked that way they would absorb it until they went bust because the government would take advantage. The majority of the price increase will ALWAYS be put on consumers.

Probably large business should absorb more of the overall burden. Smaller businesses, maybe less than 50 employees or so, should benefit if there is an overall system in place - I would NOT expect smaller businesses to have to absorb more costs. It seems that ACA is too new, so I do NOT know how these dynamics play out with ACA - accordingly, i am NOT rushing to a judgement about what aspects need to be tweaked - and repeal does NOT seem like a plausible option at this point b/c it is too early for that.