AFP leader: $94K is 133% of poverty line
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:01:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  AFP leader: $94K is 133% of poverty line
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: AFP leader: $94K is 133% of poverty line  (Read 1065 times)
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 31, 2014, 03:10:24 AM »

On MSNBC with Chris Hayes.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2014, 03:16:06 AM »

I was literally screaming at the TV when I heard her saying this the other day.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2014, 06:39:36 AM »

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2014, 08:32:57 AM »

While $94K is not below 133% of the poverty line it is below 400% of the poverty line for a family of four, and the 400% level is the point at which the subsidies phase out.  So yeah, a family of four making $94K is eligible for Obamacare subsidies.  I'm not going to spend 15 minutes listening to the whole clip to find the exact phrase used.  So yeah, if she said they qualified for Medicaid, she was wrong, but if she said they qualified for subsides, she was right, albeit not much of one at that level. (400% FPL for a family of four is $95,400.)
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2014, 01:16:31 PM »

It would be below that if they had 14 kids.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2014, 01:46:28 PM »
« Edited: March 31, 2014, 01:49:13 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

While $94K is not below 133% of the poverty line it is below 400% of the poverty line for a family of four, and the 400% level is the point at which the subsidies phase out.  So yeah, a family of four making $94K is eligible for Obamacare subsidies.  I'm not going to spend 15 minutes listening to the whole clip to find the exact phrase used.  So yeah, if she said they qualified for Medicaid, she was wrong, but if she said they qualified for subsides, she was right, albeit not much of one at that level. (400% FPL for a family of four is $95,400.)

dam u really got us libtards with this sick burn

Did you even bother reading the article? This little spat exemplifies the GOP's willingness to blatantly lie to the public about the ACA and avoiding this obvious fact is tantamount to offering excuses for Republicans.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2014, 03:46:26 PM »

While $94K is not below 133% of the poverty line it is below 400% of the poverty line for a family of four, and the 400% level is the point at which the subsidies phase out.  So yeah, a family of four making $94K is eligible for Obamacare subsidies.  I'm not going to spend 15 minutes listening to the whole clip to find the exact phrase used.  So yeah, if she said they qualified for Medicaid, she was wrong, but if she said they qualified for subsides, she was right, albeit not much of one at that level. (400% FPL for a family of four is $95,400.)

dam u really got us libtards with this sick burn

Did you even bother reading the article? This little spat exemplifies the GOP's willingness to blatantly lie to the public about the ACA and avoiding this obvious fact is tantamount to offering excuses for Republicans.

Yes, I read the article.  I just didn't bother spending 15 minutes on the video to find the exact quote the woman said to find out whether she's being misquoted or if she misspoke.  Further, if it was a case that she misspoke, I have no way of knowing whether she did so deliberately or not.  I'm not a libtard or teatard, so I lack the ability of knowing for certain that everything the opposition says is part of an insidious plot to deceive people and hide the monstrous agenda of the un-American scum out to enslave us all in corporate and/or socialist shackles.

So rather than waste my effort on playing gotcha, I simply reported that a family of four earning $94K is eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2014, 04:31:28 PM »

While $94K is not below 133% of the poverty line it is below 400% of the poverty line for a family of four, and the 400% level is the point at which the subsidies phase out.  So yeah, a family of four making $94K is eligible for Obamacare subsidies.  I'm not going to spend 15 minutes listening to the whole clip to find the exact phrase used.  So yeah, if she said they qualified for Medicaid, she was wrong, but if she said they qualified for subsides, she was right, albeit not much of one at that level. (400% FPL for a family of four is $95,400.)

dam u really got us libtards with this sick burn

Did you even bother reading the article? This little spat exemplifies the GOP's willingness to blatantly lie to the public about the ACA and avoiding this obvious fact is tantamount to offering excuses for Republicans.

Yes, I read the article.  I just didn't bother spending 15 minutes on the video to find the exact quote the woman said to find out whether she's being misquoted or if she misspoke.  Further, if it was a case that she misspoke, I have no way of knowing whether she did so deliberately or not.  I'm not a libtard or teatard, so I lack the ability of knowing for certain that everything the opposition says is part of an insidious plot to deceive people and hide the monstrous agenda of the un-American scum out to enslave us all in corporate and/or socialist shackles.

So rather than waste my effort on playing gotcha, I simply reported that a family of four earning $94K is eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

Your moderate hero act is stale: there is no comparison between the campaign of misinformation waged by the AFP/the GOP and the rhetoric of the netroots/liberals. The AFP has consistently lied in campaign ads:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/11/update-julia-boonstras-claim-her-obamacare-plan-is-unaffordable-gets-downgraded-to-three-pinocchios/
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/26/big-claims-few-details-in-anti-obamacare-ad-alleging-soaring-costs/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't a game of "gotcha" or a partisan battle where both sides are equally at fault. AFP is systematically lying.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2014, 05:37:45 PM »

And I don't really care, since I don't accept anything a politician says without checking.  However, that a family of four making $94K does qualify for an albeit minimal level of subsidy is true.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,259
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2014, 06:33:36 PM »

Why is it so offensive that a family of four with take home pay that's probably less than $80K gets what likely amounts to a couple of dollars a month off their insurance premiums?
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,076
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2014, 07:41:44 PM »

If that were true, the majority of Americans would be poor IIRC.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2014, 08:06:17 PM »

Why is it so offensive that a family of four with take home pay that's probably less than $80K gets what likely amounts to a couple of dollars a month off their insurance premiums?

Because they're supposed to be self-reliant Republicans, not greedy, mooching, Democrats. Wink
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,617


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2014, 09:31:59 PM »

It would be below that if they had 14 kids.

And that would be an argument in favor of Obamacare covering birth control.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.