Republicans Admit DEFEAT

ZappasGuitar said:
The INSURANCE COMPANY altered people's policies AFTER the ACA became the law, this makes the INSURANCE COMPANY responsible when people's insurance no longer met the requirements.
Click to expand...
/boggle....of course they did it after it became law.....it was the law that required them to do it.......if you worked for me and the law required me to fire you, would that make me responsible for your job loss or the law?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I agree.....eliminating the subsidy because someone earns LESS makes absolutely no sense....
Click to expand...
Keep ignoring the facts, and just offer little snippets of misinformation instead.

Are you aware that she can take the tax deduction at the end of the year? I'm quite sure that you're wrong about the subsidy....or you weren't being clear. If she needs to show more money to get a subsidy, then why not show more in tips, and then she'll meet the supposed income level you refuse to cite?
Is your exchange set up by the Feds, or your state?
 
Althea said:
Keep ignoring the facts, and just offer little snippets of misinformation instead.

Are you aware that she can take the tax deduction at the end of the year? I'm quite sure that you're wrong about the subsidy....or you weren't being clear. If she needs to show more money to get a subsidy, then why not show more in tips, and then she'll meet the supposed income level you refuse to cite?
Is your exchange set up by the Feds, or your state?
Click to expand...

1) taking a tax reduction is irrelevant.....she gets 100% of her withholdings back already......
2) I am dealing with fact and you are assuming.....yet you're sure I am wrong....I have received that information both from the ACA rep at the government site and from an insurance broker from BC/BS....
3) Yes, I know how to handle the situation so that she will qualify.....that does not change the fact that the ACA stops helping people with their insurance costs if they earn less than the income level required....I have an appointment Monday with an insurance broker who's going to help me edit the ACA registration to solve it.....
4) I have cited the "supposed income level" several times....$11,400......
5) Michigan uses the federal exchange....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
1) taking a tax reduction is irrelevant.....she gets 100% of her withholdings back already......
2) I am dealing with fact and you are assuming.....yet you're sure I am wrong....I have received that information both from the ACA rep at the government site and from an insurance broker from BC/BS....
3) Yes, I know how to handle the situation so that she will qualify.....that does not change the fact that the ACA stops helping people with their insurance costs if they earn less than the income level required....I have an appointment Monday with an insurance broker who's going to help me edit the ACA registration to solve it.....
4) I have cited the "supposed income level" several times....$11,400......
5) Michigan uses the federal exchange....
Click to expand...
Ahhh...at teabag state. That explains a lot. Undoubtedly, your daughter's income level usually qualifies one for Medicaid. That might be the reason for the denial of the subsidy.

But, even though your prices are a direct reflection of your obstructionist governor, you will figure out a way to get coverage for your daughter, and get her a subsidy.

So your complaining here was for....what purpose exactly?

What would your daughter's options have been before the ACA?
 
Pretty much nothing, actually. I have a 23 year old daughter who will qualify to be under my excellent insurance until she is 26 and out of school. I am loving the changes in the law!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/boggle....of course they did it after it became law.....it was the law that required them to do it.......if you worked for me and the law required me to fire you, would that make me responsible for your job loss or the law?.......
Click to expand...


But the ACA stated quite clearly that policies that were PREVIOUSLY IN PLACE before the law went into effect were GRANDFATHERED IN and therefore needed no changes.

Do you understand what "Grandfathered in" means?

Those policies might not have met the minimum requirements, but AS LONG AS THE INSURANCE COMPANY MADE NO CHANGES, they were acceptable.

The insurance companies DELIBERATELY made changes knowing what the result would be.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No...it's not.
Click to expand...

Only to Zappa. Even Obama apologized for "not being clear"... It was a flat lie. They knew people couldn't keep their insurance, that the rules "grandfathering" had to follow made it so that people would be immediately thrown on the far more costly, for most, exchange. Yet they continued to pump the lie, because they knew that most Americans were happy with their insurance and would not suffer the government to force them to change.

But thank the gods I'm now covered for pregnancy.
 
Damocles said:
Only to Zappa. Even Obama apologized for "not being clear"... It was a flat lie. They knew people couldn't keep their insurance, that the rules "grandfathering" had to follow made it so that people would be immediately thrown on the far more costly, for most, exchange. Yet they continued to pump the lie, because they knew that most Americans were happy with their insurance and would not suffer the government to force them to change.

But thank the gods I'm now covered for pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Thank gawd women are now covered for pregnancy and their insurance is the same cost as men's!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top