The Unaffordable Care Act

Same reason they don't fly coach when they can fly first class. Of course coach is still so much better than thumbing it.

Some of the lucky people on Cadillac plans, like the folks in Congress, are objecting because they'll have to contribute more to get the same level of care.

Take Rep. John Boehner. Right now, everyone gets the same level of coverage through their FEHB Plan. But under the exchanges, premiums can vary, based on a person’s age, tobacco use and place of residence. A person like Mr. Boehner, who turns 64 in November, might be charged three times as much as a 23-year-old. And as a smoker, he could be charged up to 50 percent more than a nonsmoker of the same age. None of that's true under his existing plan, which is one size and one price fits all.

It's a similar story for some of America's union workers. You can read about it here.

Unless you count personal greed it doesn't explain why the people who wrote the law and supported the law want out.

Obamacare is the same thing that Congress gets - only not 100% subsidized. But that begs the question : If Hoops and Tea-party members view the Congress plan as "awesome" then why is using that same model such a horrible idea for everyone else?

I thought DD already found the differences and posted them here? Oh. and they were NOT the same thing. At all.

Of course the whole thing won't fly w/o getting the young folks to fall ,er ,sign up for it. And of course the right is going to be fighting them every step of the way. I have to say they couldn't have come up with a creepier looking guy than this uncle sam.



The period to enroll in health insurance exchanges established under the 2010 law begins Oct. 1, which will mark the start of a race to urge Americans to participate. The health exchanges rely heavily on young, healthy Americans who will subsidize the sick and elderly within the pools. Without the healthy, the exchanges could be unsustainable. The Obama administration is devoting millions of public dollars to promote the exchanges, but many conservative groups are actively working to convince people not to join.

https://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-battle-moves-to-college-campuses-200027191.html

Sholda teamed him up with the BK king creep

Yes - when he correctly said their insurance premiums were paid by a higher subsidy

But Congress selects which plan they want from a government run exchange (just like in grandma-killing Obamacare). And the private insurance companies they choose from are the same private insurance companies you find in grandma-killing Obamacare.

So let me open the question to you. Why is Congress' "Humana/BlueCross/Wellpoint" insurance plan far superior to the"Humana/BlueCross/Wellpoint" plan available to you? I mean aside from the aformentioned premium subsidy?

The problem for young folks is that the benefits are so poor with Obama care. Most young folks that need insurance need it because something sudden and usually unexpected has happened such as an accident, appendicitis, pregnancy and so on. To hit these young folks with a massive co-pay after paying for insurance for a sudden one time medical event isn't a good deal, and some would call it downright immoral.

Since Obamacare needs these young healthy folks to make it work you'd think they would design a program that didn't screw them so much. If Republicans were smart they would quit trying to stop Obama care and let people see how truly awful it is first hand. Soon people will be begging them to get rid of it.

If they keep trying to shut down the government, holding meaningless votes and refusing to implement it at the state level they are going to end up getting at least half the blame for the failure.

You're not making any sense at all.

Insurance is to protect against the financial impact of the unknowable. It's easy to rack up $100,000 in medical bills after getting hit by a drunk driver, something no one can predict. You're telling me it's not a good deal for a young person to pay a $150 monthly premium to be prepared for that situation? And that a potential $6250 out-of-pocket for that person is immoral?

How is that not way better than having no insurance at all? Your argument is against the very notion of health insurance, not with the changes taking effect with the new law. Do you realize that?

If you're able to learn anything from the good information we've sent your way in this thread on how the new health law will help you and your family, you sure are good at concealing it.