US uninsurance rate drops to 13.4%, record low

[Sbane]

US uninsurance rate drops to 13.4%, record low

The threat of a fine of several hundred dollars has an effect on consumer habits.  Who knew?

It's actually $95 this year.

[patrick1]

US uninsurance rate drops to 13.4%, record low

The threat of a fine of several hundred dollars has an effect on consumer habits.  Who knew?

It's actually $95 this year.

^Pretty sure that is the lowest it could be.  It is a percentage of your income with a cap that increases yearly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have insurance because of it and I am immensely grateful.

[Sbane]

US uninsurance rate drops to 13.4%, record low

The threat of a fine of several hundred dollars has an effect on consumer habits.  Who knew?

It's actually $95 this year.

^Pretty sure that is the lowest it could be.  It is a percentage of your income with a cap that increases yearly.

Yeah, you are correct.

[Sbane]

I have insurance because of it and I am immensely grateful.

I think most people in this forum, unless they got covered by the Medicaid expansion or through their parents, lost out because of the ACA. I will actually have to pay more than double the amount I pay for insurance next year because of the ACA.

[patrick1]

US uninsurance rate drops to 13.4%, record low

The threat of a fine of several hundred dollars has an effect on consumer habits.  Who knew?

It's actually $95 this year.

^Pretty sure that is the lowest it could be.  It is a percentage of your income with a cap that increases yearly.

Yeah, you are correct.

Found this handy chart via Forbes

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I have insurance because of it and I am immensely grateful.

I think most people in this forum, unless they got covered by the Medicaid expansion or through their parents, lost out because of the ACA. I will actually have to pay more than double the amount I pay for insurance next year because of the ACA.

As a self-employed freelancer, I too have insurance solely because of the ACA. Best of all, it's at a significantly lower rate than when I had to make COBRA payments several years ago.

[Sbane]

I have insurance because of it and I am immensely grateful.

I think most people in this forum, unless they got covered by the Medicaid expansion or through their parents, lost out because of the ACA. I will actually have to pay more than double the amount I pay for insurance next year because of the ACA.

As a self-employed freelancer, I too have insurance solely because of the ACA. Best of all, it's at a significantly lower rate than when I had to make COBRA payments several years ago.

I bought insurance from the individual market last December and it was much cheaper than I thought it would be. Of course, it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions or maternity coverage, but it covers everything else after a $2,500 deductible. The plan is grandfathered in till this December but after that I must buy from the exchange. Those plans have premiums that are double what I am paying currently, and a higher deductible. My experience with the individual market was surprisingly pleasant and I would like the option of not having to pay for maternity coverage, which is not an option on the exchange plans.

[AggregateDemand]

I have insurance because of it and I am immensely grateful.

Begging for crumbs off of the master's table? Even the True Left know better than to do that.

In general, the US understands that our healthcare system is broken. ACA proposes to make the broken system cover more Americans. If voters don't see what's going on, they shouldn't be voting.

Refer to Mechaman's post.

[Badger]

I have insurance because of it and I am immensely grateful.

Begging for crumbs off of the master's table? Even the True Left know better than to do that.

In general, the US understands that our healthcare system is broken. ACA proposes to make the broken system cover more Americans. If voters don't see what's going on, they shouldn't be voting.

Refer to Mechaman's post.

Mechman's post essentially championed the exact opposite of every rationale ou've ever 'argued' on this forum.

You really don't have a clue what you're saying, do you? It's the debate equivilent of watching a dog chase it's tail.

[AggregateDemand]

Mechman's post essentially championed the exact opposite of every rationale ou've ever 'argued' on this forum.

You really don't have a clue what you're saying, do you? It's the debate equivilent of watching a dog chase it's tail.

I'm one of the young people Mechaman's post. I'm tired of being ripped off by a system that panders to old married people, who've borrowed the US into bigger problems than it faced during stagflation. I'm lucky not to be amongst the ranks of the under-employed, but I'm not amused by the ineptitude of our government that provides nothing and charges a great deal per capita.

The difference between Mechaman and me is (judging by the avatar) that Mechaman blames private industry, while I understand that the government is simply raking one demographic over the coals to satisfy another demographic of people.

Young people have been taxed out of the workplace, and then graciously given permission to commit financial suicide by borrowing.

[MaxQue]

Mechman's post essentially championed the exact opposite of every rationale ou've ever 'argued' on this forum.

You really don't have a clue what you're saying, do you? It's the debate equivilent of watching a dog chase it's tail.

I'm one of the young people Mechaman's post. I'm tired of being ripped off by a system that panders to old married people, who've borrowed the US into bigger problems than it faced during stagflation.

But you'll be old at a point.

[AggregateDemand]

But you'll be old at a point.

When I get old, I'll be comfortable with the global economic rancor caused by the sloth of US legislators?

[MaxQue]

But you'll be old at a point.

When I get old, I'll be comfortable with the global economic rancor caused by the sloth of US legislators?

No, you'll get more money from insurance companies than you'll give to them.

[AggregateDemand]

No, you'll get more money from insurance companies than you'll give to them.

The United States is not plagued by people who receive more than they put in on an annual basis. The US is plagued by generations of people who've barely paid a fraction of their time-value adjusted benefits. Furthermore, the US uses a method of pension-management that has been expressed banned in the private sector for being unstable and inequitable.

The US government raises taxes on the youngs, while finding new ways to expand spendthrift in Social Security and Medicare. The average citizen doesn't really understand the vastness of human rights violations, but most international agencies have been sounding the alarm bells for about a decade.

If our entitlements and debt-crises wipe out the youngs, we can kiss the global economy goodbye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The U.S. government hasn't "raised taxes on the young." I've seen plenty of state tax increases, but none from the feds. In fact, my tax burden is lower now than when I first started working during the Clinton era.

No serious politician advocates for increasing the tax rates on the lowest income brackets.

[AggregateDemand]

The U.S. government hasn't "raised taxes on the young." I've seen plenty of state tax increases, but none from the feds. In fact, my tax burden is lower now than when I first started working during the Clinton era.

No serious politician advocates for increasing the tax rates on the lowest income brackets.

We're talking about effective tax rates over a citizen's lifetime, not marginal bracket rates. FICA tax threshold was once 100% of median household income. Now, FICA tax threshold is over 200% of median household income, and the rates are higher, and there are no more special allowances for self-employed individuals.

Income tax has not been eased enough or eased in an equitable manner to offset the increases in FICA tax. As FICA tax receipts increase, they crowd out income tax revenues, which puts pressure on important federal programs.

[Badger]

Mechman's post essentially championed the exact opposite of every rationale ou've ever 'argued' on this forum.

You really don't have a clue what you're saying, do you? It's the debate equivilent of watching a dog chase it's tail.

I'm one of the young people Mechaman's post. I'm tired of being ripped off by a system that panders to old married people, who've borrowed the US into bigger problems than it faced during stagflation. I'm lucky not to be amongst the ranks of the under-employed, but I'm not amused by the ineptitude of our government that provides nothing and charges a great deal per capita.

The difference between Mechaman and me is (judging by the avatar) that Mechaman blames private industry, while I understand that the government is simply raking one demographic over the coals to satisfy another demographic of people.

Young people have been taxed out of the workplace, and then graciously given permission to commit financial suicide by borrowing.

You truly believe that the private sector has less influence over health care economics than the government? Really?

[Iosif]

It is newsworthy because a high controversial, much maligned piece of legislation is working despite a large opposition who insisted (to put it very nicely) that it would not.

To put it nicely, a large number of people believed it when legislators had claimed previously that they understood that the fact that Americans spend at least one-sixth of their money on medical care was a problem, and that they would attempt to deal with this bureaucracy and inefficiency.  To put it nicely, a large number of people were quite surprised when a number of legislators claimed never to have read it even as they voted on it.  To put it nicely, no one is surprised at the fact that when someone puts a gun to your head and asks you to buy something, you buy it.  To put it nicely, if that's what you call "working" then yes, I'd have to agree that the PPACA is working very nicely.  Here, buy this or pay a fine.  That all works out very nicely, doesn't it?

A nominal fine is a gun to the head.

No hyperbole here.

[AggregateDemand]

You truly believe that the private sector has less influence over health care economics than the government? Really?

Half of all healthcare spending is Medicare and Medicaid. The "private" healthcare industry is tax-subsidized, and directed by state and federal regulators to offer certain products and services.

No one has private market-based healthcare except people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who pay for concierge health services out of pocket. It's a micro-market with virtually no affect on the healthcare industry.