Althouse: "IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family."

January 31, 2013

"IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family."

How can this possibly work?

213 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213

Original Mike said...: I'd support real health care reform, with catastrophic insurance at it's core, no matter who proposed; Obama, Satan, whomever.; 2/1/13, 3:28 PM
Scott M said...: As it has developed today, is there any difference? It's a redundancy.

Absolutely the dumbest thing you have written hereabouts in quite some time.; 2/1/13, 3:31 PM
Scott M said...: If Obama had an (R) as his party designation, all you slobs would be singing his praises as a "tough" "real politik" player. (Well, most of you.)

Well..that previous RC quote's bonafides didn't last long. Sorry about that, folks. I'll read all the way through next time.; 2/1/13, 3:32 PM
Drago said...: Cook: "That some--even many--conservatives do not like Romneycare does not cancel out the reality that it originated with conservative thinkers and was implemented under a Republican governorship."

LOL

A Republican governor with democrat super-majorities in both chambers who could override (easily) any veto Romney could offer!!

You might think to include that little factoid the next time you act like Romney had all this power as governor.

Of course this is cookie who casually, nonchalantly and matter of fact-ly simply asserted that Ronald Reagan coordinated the continued captivity of American citizens with iranian extremists.

All without a shred of proof.

And then cookie played the hilarious game of well, gee there is no absolute or definitive evidence of that but, gee whiz, there was alot of other evidence.

LOL

Which itself is a fabrication made up out of whole cloth.; 2/1/13, 3:57 PM
rcommal said...: Retired/lost my job in 1999.

Which is it? "Retired," or "lost my job"?

"I was 52 years old."

That's common, now. Not special.

"Collected $610 monthly pension when I turned 55.

Awesome. You had a pension you were able to start collecting at age 55? Wow. Fortunate you. I do agree that the amount is at least dishearteningly, if not disgustingly, low, based on how I suspect you earned it (and by **earned** it, I seriously do mean that you did, in fact, earn it and are owed it.

Started to collect social security when I turned 62.

Yes, you decided to collect it on the early side, as so many do, including some of my own closest relatives. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I don't begrudge it. On the other, I know that it means your 62 most likely will mean a whole number of years later, at a minimum, for people a decade or so younger (even though they will, in fact, for the most part, have paid more into the system that you have, and with ever dwindling chances of getting the investment back.)

Signed up for Medicare when I turned 65.

Of course. Why not? I would. And if I can still, then, I will.

Did you know that Medicare isn't free?

Jesus Christ, AllenS (and, by the way, Michael Haz),of course I do. WTF?

They take the premium right out of the social security check.

Hmm. That's an interesting way to put it. Given ever thing.

By the way, at 66 years old, I'm still working, only for myself. Cash. Combine that with my investments, I'm not doing too bad. It hasn't been easy, but it has been rewarding.

Again, I'm not surprised. Far from it. Your industriousness and persistence are things I've admired for many years now.

OTOH, all of that is rather beside the point I was making.; 2/3/13, 1:04 AM
rcommal said...: And, AllenS, may I just point to some of the content of what you just said? And that is that you tended to start claiming whatever benefits you could claim at a younger age even in *those* times. *Those* times are not *these* times--and *these* times will be nothing like what most of us, neither young nor senior, are facing.

If you don't get that, then...whatever, OK. I mean, after all, why should you?

That said, if you don't: Exactly why ought I respect the insights you have to offer, most specifically about self-sufficiency, old age, living off the teat, living off the grid, and so forth?

Seriously, AllenS, why? I don't have any problem posing that question to Haz, either, TBC, as well.; 2/3/13, 1:25 AM
Michael Haz said...: @rcommal - I have read your postings and am still waiting for justification of your "gravy train" remark.

Allen's pension is $7320 per year, well below the poverty level.

Where's the gravy train?

You don't know my circumstances, so again, I ask you, where's the gravy train?; 2/3/13, 9:56 AM
rcommal said...: Right back atcha, Michael. It's important to take individual circumstances into account when employing rhetoric. How important has it been to you or AllenS, for example, to do that in the past number of years? Not very, from what I have been able to tell. So you're objecting to my doing, or not doing--

what?

And why?; 2/3/13, 11:35 PM
rcommal said...: Look, I'm going to be clear about a particular thing: All sorts of entitlements are unsustainable. "All sorts" includes both social security and medicare. It's stupid to employ artificial age cutoffs (that don't take into account different circumstances). I don't see any way to address the issue other than to employ needs testing, regardless of what was paid in. (Obviously, AllenS would not--should not--be affected under that scenario, given his situation, as he and you have laid it out; but then, perhaps he should consider attacking less those who have paid in more but will get far less return.); 2/3/13, 11:50 PM
rcommal said...: And I'm sorry if the following reality bothers anyone, but reality it is:

Those who got to be eligible to collect various government old-age benefits at a relatively young senior age ARE incredibly lucky, and they will continue to be so. They have indeed gotten there without either a needs-based or $contributions-based assessment.

While there have been relatively minor adjustments over the years, those will be **nothing like** the incredibly steep adjustments that will be required of those not at all THAT much younger than those who will get off pretty much *scot-free* from bearing the responsibility for and pain of their decisions. (This would be the problem posed by the "if you're 55 or older, there will be no difference" approach-thingie of doing things--without either a contribution-based or needs-based assessment.); 2/4/13, 12:09 AM
rcommal said...: And let's make no mistake about something else:

There's not much of a difference between the self-absorption of a 70+-year-old, a 60+-year-old and a 20+-year-old, 30+-year-old, 40*-year-old and 50+-year old--

--except for those subgroups among the latter four groups (please note the two not included) who--in the ***aggregate***, because of course there individual **exceptions**--are well and truly going to get screwed, no matter what they do, don't do, have done, or haven't done: Simply put, they're going to get screwed no matter what.

Well, OK. "Suck it up" is the appropriate *overall* reaction to the absolute reality as far as living and arranging life goes. (Take the reality, adjust to it and move on.) "Not so" in terms of reacting to things via the Internet, from rare time to time.

I mean, that I do not have to suck up, and not only that, I get to challenge those who--from their entirely different demographic position than mine--apparently think I should. But I don't. Especially not in context.; 2/4/13, 12:35 AM
rcommal said...: As for "gravy train," Haz, think slang: It requires very little work to sling rhetoric, much less a hash of philosophy and policy, to score partisan points especially when it's not as if, either way, the slingers are themselves gonna be bearing the burden of having to actually eat that hash.; 2/4/13, 2:04 AM
rcommal said...: Some folks long for other folks to have "skin in the game." Me, too. But even more, I long for people who helped make the hash demand that they get to eat the hash, too!

; )

: /

Eh, ah, whatever. *shrug*

(It's not as if either is bloody likely, after all. See: Adjusting to life as it is.); 2/4/13, 2:14 AM