Does your Obamacare cost too much? Make less money!

posted at 6:31 pm on October 13, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

This is a story out of California that’s been making the rounds this weekend and definitely needs to be filed under, “Who could have possibly seen this coming?” Some of the people who managed the feat of getting through the dysfunctional web site and actually getting quotes on health care policies under Obamacare have already been finding out that “low priced” can mean something entirely different than they may have thought. This is particularly true of older citizens on fixed incomes. But if your income is low enough, you can just scratch off a lot of the cost of those premiums with a taxpayer funded subsidy, right? Sure… but what if your income is too high? Well, duh… you should make less money!

People whose 2014 income will be a little too high to get subsidized health insurance from Covered California next year should start thinking now about ways to lower it to increase their odds of getting the valuable tax subsidy.

“If they can adjust (their income), they should,” says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow with the Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s not cheating, it’s allowed.”

Under the Affordable Care Act, if your 2014 income is between 138 and 400 percent of poverty level for your household size, you can purchase health insurance on a state-run exchange (such as Covered California) and receive a federal tax subsidy to offset all or part of your premium.

This, er… “helpful” article offers one retired couple as an example of this phenomenon. In order to fall under the 400% of poverty level ceiling, they need to have a family income of less than $62,040.00, but they they’ll need to trim their income to qualify as they estimate they’ll take in around $64,000.00. So rather than rewarding them for planning ahead to do as well as they can in their retirement years, the system will push them to make less.

And why do they need to do this in the first place? Are they two of those “irresponsible people” we keep hearing about? No. They’ve had a bare bones Kaiser plan which costs them around $7,200 per year. But it doesn’t “qualify” under Obamacare because it doesn’t offer certain mandatory types of coverage… specifically maternity care, healthy child visits and coverage for dependents up to age 26. But these people are in their sixties and none of those things apply to them.

Welcome to the future, folks. And it’s already here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Face it – you all LOST the last election. The law was passed, the Supreme Court upheld it

So you say that the law is the law, but really? If the law is the law, why are unions who pushed for the law, now wanting themselves exempted from it? Why do those who passed the law want exempted from it or subsidized under it?

and, despite what Fox News is telling you, it’s hugely popular.

No, it’s been unpopular for a long time. Every poll tells you that, ostrich.

Ask the millions of people who will now be able top see a doctor for the first time in years

Actually, they could see them now. Remember, that an earlier law requires hospitals to see patients whether they are insured or not. So if someone wasn’t seeing a doctor, it was because they CHOSE not to.

thanks to your generosity.

…says the fox to the chicken.

If you don’t like it, feel free to try to win the next election and repeal it. Good luck with that. Try convincing your neighbors to vote to void their new health insurance.

pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 10:05 PM

We will. It will just take the pain of premium increases, IRS penalties, lack of doctors, increased wait time… and then…

So my question to you, oh blatherer of talking points…

Do you really believe the law is the law? Do you support the President in dealing out exemptions that are illegal under the law, and illegal under the Law (US Constitution duties of the Executive Branch).

Do you really believe that all people should be equal under the law?

Or do you side with our sh!t-covered President in thinking that some pigs are more equal than others?

dominigan on October 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM

If you define winners and losers under Obamacare as those who get subsidies and those that don’t there will be be people on both sides of the aisle that will win or lose.

gerrym51 on October 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

If you don’t like it, feel free to try to win the next election and repeal it. Good luck with that. Try convincing your neighbors to vote to void their new health insurance.

pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Not too hard. My friend who was an Obamabot got a swift dose of reality when he finally got his exchange-provided insurance quotes. I was reveling in quite a bit of schadenfreude when before ACA he was complaining about how expensive his coverage was because “All of my coworkers are fat f*cking slobs!”

Well He got his quote and lets just say that he literally had sticker shock. He is wondering how he got hoodwinked into thinking that it was going to be “affordable” and I pointed him towards the bevy of independent reports that he claimed six months ago were false and biased and “faux news”.

If it wasn’t also happening to me and my premiums I’d be laughing my ass off right now.

Defenestratus on October 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

If you define winners and losers under Obamacare as those who get subsidies and those that don’t there will be be people on both sides of the aisle that will win or lose.

gerrym51 on October 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Why can’t everyone “win”?

In the case of the ACA, the “winners” are the unproductive and the “losers” are the productive. The problem is that there’s absolutely no incentive either internal to the ACA or in the leeching welfare wagon world itself that promotes productivity. The thought that people don’t *WANT* to be on welfare is a funny one.

Defenestratus on October 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Remember when prezzy barricades told us that at some point he thought we were making enough money? Maybe this was what he meant.

Kissmygrits on October 14, 2013 at 10:21 AM

The ACA already factored in that “reducing your income” thing by incentives to make part-time workers out of full-timers. Lots of people are cutting their pay these days.

RSbrewer on October 14, 2013 at 10:23 AM

If it wasn’t also happening to me and my premiums I’d be laughing my ass off right now.

Defenestratus on October 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Amen.

I believe in the importance of repealing and supported the effort.

Eventually there will be a reckoning and people will want to know why no one stood up against it.

Obama care will rob from the middle-class and give to the poor like no other redistribution system in history. Some day hopefully someone will come demanding answers.

itsspideyman on October 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

One thing about this whole thing that I don’t think people are realizing is that the only places that will accept insurance soon are the large, monolithic healthcare systems.

Speaking to several of my wife’s colleagues – many of them are going to cash only practices (they are Family practice docs so they can do this).

Insurance… who needs it?

Defenestratus on October 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Looks like powderymildew123 trolled just about everyone. LOL I’da prolly fallen for it, too, had I been here as his comments dribbled out.

Jazz on October 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM

trolled just about everyone

The Obama Trolls have been out in force for the past week. Good to see they finally got a part-time job, no doubt under 30 hours a week.

RADIOONE on October 14, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Looks like powderymildew123 trolled just about everyone. LOL I’da prolly fallen for it, too, had I been here as his comments dribbled out.

Jazz on October 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM

“The (Fugitive Slave Act) law was passed, the Supreme Court upheld it”

The fellow pro-slavery trolls of 1857, proud Democrats and spiritual brothers of the O-care lovers.

ebrown2 on October 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM

If OCare were a Republican program, the left would be screaming about this.

Ward Cleaver on October 14, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Hope I am not repeating, but in Europe this is known as the ‘poverty trap’. You are discouraged from working because if you pass certain thresholds the effective marginal rate of taxation is enormous when you lose various entitlements or in this case subsidies. It is an enormous social problem.

Additionally, once government has its hands on medical care it becomes an overwhelmingly dominant battleground, which under the US system would lead to endless opportunities for political bribery of the electorate.

Finally, who would want to put their personal records where a politicized civil service can get easy access to them. IRS anybody. If you have an embarrassing disease and you are an opponent of the government you are f*cked.

kirkbride on October 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM

One thing about this whole thing that I don’t think people are realizing is that the only places that will accept insurance soon are the large, monolithic healthcare systems.

Speaking to several of my wife’s colleagues – many of them are going to cash only practices (they are Family practice docs so they can do this).

Insurance… who needs it?

Defenestratus on October 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Yep – that is what will happen. Until the govt makes that illegal. They tried something like that with HillaryCare in the 90s.

Zomcon JEM on October 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Why can’t everyone “win”?

not enough money

gerrym51 on October 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Amen.

I believe in the importance of repealing and supported the effort.

Eventually there will be a reckoning and people will want to know why no one stood up against it.

Obama care will rob from the middle-class and give to the poor like no other redistribution system in history. Some day hopefully someone will come demanding answers.

itsspideyman on October 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

What many in the middle class don’t understand about the progs’ ‘wealth redistribution’ is that they are the target, not the beneficiary. Many of the fools in the middle class cheer on proggies like the REB, thinking he is going to ‘stick it to the rich’ and shower the middle class with goodies.

It doesn’t work like that. There simply aren’t enough rich people. The proggies want to redistribute income to the poor, and the middle class is where the money is.

Pay up, you stupid middle class democratic voters.

slickwillie2001 on October 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Face it – you all LOST the last election. The law was passed, the Supreme Court upheld it, and, despite what Fox News is telling you, it’s hugely popular. Ask the millions of people who will now be able top see a doctor for the first time in years, thanks to your generosity. If you don’t like it, feel free to try to win the next election and repeal it. Good luck with that. Try convincing your neighbors to vote to void their new health insurance.

pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Yeah, the law was passed, but look how it was passed. It was passed in the middle of night, using a parliamentary gadget called Reconciliation; AKA the nuclear option and they still had to bribe three senators to get that through. So yeah, you got the law passed, but it’s a bad law.

Kat_man on October 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM

The common message here is “Why should I help those less fortunate than me!?” If that’s your attitude, then there’s no arguing with you. Although how such people can call themselves “Christian” is a mystery to me.

pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 7:41 PM

LOL.

What your Obamacare is doing is “helping” the poor by a) requiring them to buy something they don’t need, b) forcing them to work LESS for it to be “affordable”, and c) increasing the tax burden on others who work, making THEM poorer.

Versus you just reaching into your pocket and giving them the money.

Liberals do not believe in helping the less fortunate; they believe in enslaving them and making them helpless dependents on liberals for handouts. Liberals do not want to end poverty because that would depopulate their plantations and leave them powerless.

northdallasthirty on October 14, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The poor don’t need health care? Explain that. I’ll bet you know at least three people who have no health insurance and so haven’t been to a doctor in years. I know I do. Explain how these people, who, with the help of the ACA, will now be able to afford to go to the doctor, don’t really need to…

pm123 on October 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM

The poor don’t need health care? Explain that. I’ll bet you know at least three people who have no health insurance and so haven’t been to a doctor in years. I know I do. Explain how these people, who, with the help of the ACA, will now be able to afford to go to the doctor, don’t really need to…

pm123 on October 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I actually don’t know anybody without insurance, everybody I know works and are covered through work….do you work? As for the poor who need healthcare, sure tey do, but then I thiught that’s what Medicaid is for…

jimver on October 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Explain how these people, who, with the help of the ACA, will now be able to afford to go to the doctor, don’t really need to…

They’ve been seeing the doctor all along – and before you tell me I’m lying you should slow your roll because my wife, a family practice physician takes care of these “insurance-less” poor all day long at her clinic that is run by the largest healthcare system in the state.

The only difference now is that they’ll be penalized if they don’t get a plan that we pay for. *Nothing* is changing.

Defenestratus on October 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

The poor don’t need health care? Explain that. I’ll bet you know at least three people who have no health insurance and so haven’t been to a doctor in years. I know I do. Explain how these people, who, with the help of the ACA, will now be able to afford to go to the doctor, don’t really need to…

pm123 on October 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM

It thinks the ACA makes health care free?

Typical obamabot.

Murphy9 on October 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM

May you and everyone you love get utterly destroyed by it.

Murphy9 on October 14, 2013 at 2:08 PM

This post is LONG. I found pm123′s commentary to be a bit trite, so I took the time to compile and respond to all of his commentary. If I actually had issues competing for my time, I’d be less inclined to spend the time doing this, but I was free, and responding to this mountain of dreck seemed like an interesting way to pass that time. ;)

The common message here is “Why should I help those less fortunate than me!?” If that’s your attitude, then there’s no arguing with you. Although how such people can call themselves “Christian” is a mystery to me.
pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 7:41 PM

You explicitly and implicitly assert several points:
1. The commenters here all, to some extent, enjoy an enviable degree of “fortune”;
2. The comments uniformly decry lending assistance to people who do not enjoy that same enviable degree of “fortune”;
3. Government is the only legitimate vehicle to provide assistance to those deemed in need of assistance;
4. Those who object to government-funded charity are incapable of a rational discussion about the role of government in charity;
5. You are an arbiter of “true” Christianity”;
6. Supporting government “charity” is a Christian act;
7. Opposition to government charity is an un-Christian act.

Let’s address these points sequentially:

1. In the absence of personal acquaintance, you have limited knowledge, at best, of Hot Air commenters. In fact, it would likely be fair to say you have no knowledge of HA commenters other than that which you believe you can extrapolate from general news and polling regarding Republicans. You have no knowledge of how the commenters break down in terms of economic strata, family status, or ethnic diversity. Without specific knowledge, your implicit assertion that the commenters here enjoy a degree of fortune (which, at the most basic level, is true, but that ignores whether the fortune is good or bad; you, however, simply imply that the commenters enjoy good fortune) is nothing more than wishcasting.

2. The comments here overwhelmingly speak to commenters’ views of government-administered “charity” and do not imugn the beneficiaries of charitable aid whatsoever.

3. No matter what charitable goal you seek to advance, private charities can more effectively provide desired services than the government. The government is a profligate spender without a conscience and cannot be trusted to spend moneys wisely, as $900 toilet seats, the Solyndra debacle, and rampant Medicare fraud illustrate. Conservatives believe there are other means to your end, and those means do not incorporate an expansion of government, a reduction in freedom, or appropriations of citizen property.

4. A stereotype. Conservatism is replete with legitimate arguments against social entitlements, and merely labeling advocates of those arguments as intransigent without considering their positions is… well, intransigent.

5. I would be surprised if anyone anywhere would acknowledge your infallibility – or even your facility – as an arbiter of true Christianity. I do not.

6. “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21. The bible recognizes that the spiritual and the secular claim dominion over separate parts of life.

The money that government redistributes as “charity” is coercively appropriated from the citizenry under threat of imprisonment. Money given involuntarily to the state under pain of penalty does not constitute charity and more resembles a payment of extortion ransom. The Christian value in charity derives from the voluntary nature of the gift; it is the unconditional act of kindness that carries redemptive value, not the value of the gift given.

7. See the preceding paragraph.

Yeah – why should the government force people to pay to promote the common good!? That’s un-American! Next thing you know they’ll be asking us all to pay taxes to builds bombs and roads and bridges and useless stuff like that!

Nobody is disputing that the government should act for the common good, nor are they disputing that the citizenry should foot the bill for those acts. The commenters here disagree with your ideology as to exactly how much latitude the government has to act and as to what acts are outside the scope of legal, Constitutional action. “The common good” is not, no matter how liberals wish to interpret it, a license for the government to act indiscriminately.

Face it – you all LOST the last election. The law was passed, the Supreme Court upheld it, and, despite what Fox News is telling you, it’s hugely popular. Ask the millions of people who will now be able top see a doctor for the first time in years, thanks to your generosity. If you don’t like it, feel free to try to win the next election and repeal it. Good luck with that. Try convincing your neighbors to vote to void their new health insurance.
pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 10:05 PM

All of us are well-aware of how the last election played out. However, there are a number of reasons for the country as a whole to be concerned not just about the Obamacare’s substance and its current and prospective effects, but its legislative history, as well.

You say, “The law was passed, the Supreme Court upheld it, and, despite what Fox News is telling you, it’s hugely popular.” While conservatives cannot dispute that the law was passed, Congress passed it without any bipartisan support. Obamacare passed only after promises were made to Bart Stupak in Michigan to secure his vote – promises about religious exemptions and contraception that have not been honored. It passed only after the Cornhusker Kickback was made to Ben Nelson and Nebraska. The Dems in Congress passed Obamacare through institutional bribery, preferential treatment, and fraud. Any other transactions marred by these kinds of strong-arm tactics and duplicity would be ripe for undoing, and questions regarding the legitimacy of this law’s passage are the natural and foreseeable consequence of ObamaCare’s enactment. The widespread discontent now being voiced won’t be tempered until the public has been assured its concerns have been addressed, and the Dems have done little to assuage those concerns, so this law is not going to enjoy ubiquitous welcome.

I’m not sure if you understand what the Supreme Court held, but it did not hold that Obamacare is Constitutional. The Supreme Court held that Obamacare was not un-Constitutional on the bases cited to the Court. SCOTUS also held that Obamacare could be justified as a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing authority, not that it actually IS a valid exercise of that power. There appears to be at least one more inchoate Constitutional claim to invalidate Obamacare ripening for review based on the Act’s origination in the Senate rather than the House (all taxing bills must originate in the House under the Constitution, and SCOTUS has not entertained this argument yet). Given the opportunity, I suspect John Roberts and the conservative members of the Court, along with any of the procedurally aware members of the liberal side of the Court, will take the opening Roberts created to kill Obamacare – because they must, not because they’re making ideological statements.

As to the law’s popularity, the latest numbers still find it under water ( http://on-msn.com/17pFD0s ) – and that’s in a poll where government workers and Democrats are significantly over-represented. Call it “hugely popular” if you wish; in reality, Obamacare remains more “hugely unpopular” than “hugely popular.”
And this “obsession” about the debt…. America is BUILT on debt. Our economy would dry up and blow away without massive debt, yet suddenly debt is “bad.” Hmmm. Trillions of that debt is due to useless wars in the Middle East, yet that doesn’t raise a peep. Is anyone around here advocating cutting the elephant in the living room when it comes to spending – the Pentagon? Didn’t think so. Oh wait, we HAVE to spend trillions on useless posturing toys for the Pentagon (like the utterly pointless “Joint Strike Fighter”), because the Constitution says we “have to.” Right.
pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Please explain why and hour our economy would “dry up and blow away” without massive debt, and provide authorities for assertions. Also, please explain how carrying massive debt is preferable to the carrying no debt or surpluses. I’m eager to hear your elucidation.
If you believe government spending went unnoticed before Obama, you are either ignorant of, or are intentionally ignoring, the Porkbusters (http://bit.ly/17pIMgG ), who were the progenitors of the Tea Party.

As to spending on defense, defense spending is a Constitutionally articulated obligation of the government. Social welfare programs are not. One may argue soundly and rationally that the social welfare programs are not authorized under the Constitution. While those arguments may not be popular, popularity is not the benchmark for soundness or reason, and that point is irrelevant.

Well, “WryTrvller,” I’m not losing sleep over it, and I’m sorry to hear that you are. If you need any salt or oil, I’m happy to share.
pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 10:35 PM

You’re just being provocative. This comment merits no response.

Alana: And I know many people who worked (and still work) much harder than any graduate student or college student I’ve ever met. The people that pick the food in the fields that you buy at the supermarket, for example. They are not less fortunate because they are lazy (the usual meme from the right that you simplistically apply here), but because they didn’t have the advantages you had, which probably included Federally (tax dollar) funded student loans and access to schools funded (at least in the case of public universities) by massive amounts of tax money. Do you really want to imply that the majority of those less fortunate than you are so because they are simply lazy? That, of course, is a ridiculous talking point.
pm123 on October 13, 2013 at 10:57 PM

You make many sweeping generalizations without any shred of supporting evidence. You say, “The people that pick the food in the fields that you buy at the supermarket . . . are not less fortunate because they are lazy . . ., but because they didn’t have the advantages you had.” First of all, what is the definition for “less fortunate”? What are the criteria for belonging to the group? I’m not willing to concede that farm workers/migrant workers ARE less fortunate. Moreover, the implications of being “less fortunate” (depending on how the term is defined) may pale in light of the value of earned success (http://arthurbrooks.aei.org/learn/earned-success-2/ ). The mere fact that someone is “less fortunate” as define them may not be the problem that you seem to wish it were.

Picking produce is hard work. Not all folks who pick produce work hard, though. Even those with a good work ethic can be lazy about managing their personal affairs, which ultimately is what decides ones’s station in life: To get ahead, we need to take advantage of opportunities we encounter, and sometimes we have to seek opportunities rather than waiting for them to find us. “Lazy” can and does apply to a lot more than just work habits.

WryTrvllr: Quite a few, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
pm123 on October 14, 2013 at 12:51 AM

Rather than just listing countries by public debt, why don’t you identify which countries with high public debt have robust economies and explain the correlation? Then can you explain why other countries with similarly high public debt may not share the same robustness of economy?

The poor don’t need health care? Explain that. I’ll bet you know at least three people who have no health insurance and so haven’t been to a doctor in years. I know I do. Explain how these people, who, with the help of the ACA, will now be able to afford to go to the doctor, don’t really need to…
pm123 on October 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Not all poor people need regular health care. Young people of any socio-economic stratum are less-likely to require medical care for any reason – young people are just healthier. Period. This is why the success of O-Care is dependent on enrolling sufficient numbers of young adults – to subsidize the demands the aging and the otherwise uninsurable will place on the system. It’s simply a truth: Not all people will require the same amount of medical care throughout their lives, and some will require very, very little medical care even in old age. Obamacare is not a good fit for everyone. It’s not even a good fit for most, as you’ll find out over the next year.

Jazz on October 14, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Remembering how those “rebates” from Cash For Clunkers somehow became 1099-reportable income
.. and the folks don’t see *any* similarity to the ACA ‘free-money’ subsidies ?

/extra butter on the popcorn, please.
/.

CaveatEmpty on October 14, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Jazz – you seem to be making my argument for me! Of course young people will pay more to subsidize the elderly and infirm. That’s how insurance works! And of course the young and healthy will grumble about the cost of the ACA, but the sick and elderly will be thrilled, and there are increasingly more of them these days, with our fabulously unhealthy American lifestyle. And it’s okay to run up massive debt to finance the war machine, but not to feed the hungry or heal the sick because the constitution requires it!? Absurd.

pm123 on October 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Jazz – you seem to be making my argument for me! Of course young people will pay more to subsidize the elderly and infirm. That’s how insurance works!

Actually, historically, no, that has not been how insurance works. Insurance historically has left the decision whether to insure applicants up to the privately-owned company offering insurance. Because rates were determined by the statistiscal likelihood of each applicant requiring particular services, applicants who would take more from the insurance pool than contribute to it (“uninsurables”) were excluded, because they would deplete not only profits (which are a mandated objective according to corporate law for for-profit entities), but also the available pool of funds for persons whose insurable health issues were covered under their policies. In other words, insuring uninsurables was a major money loser, and no one was forced to subsidize anyone else’s known, resource-draining problems. When an an insurance policy went into effect, it was insuring against odds – it was basically a bet against loss.

Under Obamacare, the risk pool is imposed over a pre-set cost structure that must be imposed to cover uninsurables. There is very little betting involved in insuring uninsurable – the risk of loss is 100% – the insurer absolutely will lose more money than the otherwise uninsurable can contribute. Before insuring against the likelihood of an applicant’s healthcare event, insurers must calculate and apportion the costs of medical care for the otherwise uninsurables. We are all now forced to pay for medical care of people for whom we have no legal relation or obligation. You may find that wonderful, but it runs contrary to 1000 years of property law, tort law, and natural law, and it is viscerally offensive to many.

And of course the young and healthy will grumble about the cost of the ACA, but the sick and elderly will be thrilled, and there are increasingly more of them these days, with our fabulously unhealthy American lifestyle.

The sick may be thrilled, but the elderly? The elderly actually use health care services now. As you constrain their access the physicians they are satisfied with, as you increase their monthly costs against fixed incomes, they are going to have something to say about o’Care, and it’s not going to be what you envision.

Enjoy your perceived successes now. They will not last. Obamacare is fiscally unsustainable, and it is going to die a spectacular death, along with “progressivism.” Doctors are retiring and changing careers, and replacements can’t keep pace. In three years, as medical care gets harder to come by, is more expensive, and as the Act kills the American economy, the middle class will defecating on progressive ideology, all on account of Obamacare. So, I’m content to let it roll out in full force.

And it’s okay to run up massive debt to finance the war machine, but not to feed the hungry or heal the sick because the constitution requires it!? Absurd.

You give every appearance of being Constitutionally illiterate. Have you ever read the Constitution? The Federalist Papers? Do you have any direct exposure the principles upon which this nation was founded that hasn’t been filtered thru liberal interpretation? Have you ever even read a SCOTUS opinion on a Constitutional issue?

Jazz on October 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM

“The sick may be thrilled” Well, we can’t have that, can we?!

pm123 on October 15, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I think we are arguing with a 12-year-old.

Alana on October 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I think we are arguing with a 12-year-old.

Alana on October 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Footsoldier in Obama’s Free Shit Army™

The productive people of America owe it something, in its own fetid, reprobate mind.

Murphy9 on October 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM

“The sick may be thrilled” Well, we can’t have that, can we?!

pm123 on October 15, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Once again, I ask you to support your opinions:

1. Rather than just listing countries by public debt, why don’t you identify which countries with high public debt have robust economies and explain the correlation? Then can you explain why other countries with similarly high public debt may not share the same robustness of economy? If you cannot, your point is meritless and deserves absolutely no recognition whatsoever.

2. As I mentioned above, you give every appearance of being Constitutionally illiterate. Have you ever read the Constitution? The Federalist Papers? Do you have any direct exposure the principles upon which this nation was founded that hasn’t been filtered thru liberal interpretation? Have you ever even read a SCOTUS opinion on a Constitutional issue?

Jazz on October 15, 2013 at 3:19 PM

More questions regarding your opinions you did not answer, pm123:

3. Please explain why and how our economy would “dry up and blow away” without massive debt, and provide authorities for assertions. Also, please explain how carrying massive debt is preferable to the carrying no debt or surpluses. I’m eager to hear your elucidation.

4. You say, “The people that pick the food in the fields that you buy at the supermarket . . . are not less fortunate because they are lazy . . ., but because they didn’t have the advantages you had.” First of all, what is the definition for “less fortunate”? What are the criteria for belonging to the group?

Jazz on October 15, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2