TexasCHLforum.com

sunny beach wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

jmra wrote:Right after the spawn of satan was elected the first time I got a call from my sons first grade teacher. Apparently they were discussing how elections work and the role of President. My son very enthusiastically shared my opinions. It was all I could do not to laugh as the teacher shared his colorful comments. Took him out for ice cream after school.

I would have bought him a weeks worth of ice cream.

Just wait. Obama and Bloomberg will make that illegal too.

When that day comes, America will become a nation of law breakers.

gringo pistolero wrote:It's interesting to observe many of these complaints are coming from people who already embraced socialist medicine in the form of medicare, etc. Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not in favor of obamacare. In fact, I think it's unconstitutional like 90% or more of the federal laws on the books, despite what old people in robes say, but I think it's an interesting comment on the differences between principles and practice.

Embraced you say? Pay attention grasshopper. When you are three months before your 65th birthday, you are required to sign up for Medicare. If you miss the deadline, the government will FINE you. Does that sound like embracing to you? I have a Medicare card, but I don't use Medicare. I have insurance. I don't want Medicare. But I'll be darned if I'm going to pay those bloodsuckers a fine by refusing to sign up.

cb1000rider wrote:You can't compare a plan that was employer subsidized and a plan that you're buying on the open market with no employer backing and blame the increase completely on Obamacare.

Why not? Obamacare is the law that is written deliberately to incent companies to drop their coverage and force their employees to seek coverage in the exchanges. What other explanation do you have for this sudden change in behavior by corporations?

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote: Eventually even the rubes will realize they've been robbed, but by then it won't matter.

Some of the rubes like me are trying to figure it out based on data, not on the political theater. Lots of health care provides seem to be hiding under the cover of "Obamacare" to make changes that are not good for consumers. I don't believe them at face value.

The health care providers are making the changes based upon the rules written by HHS. None of this is being done in a vacuum. Do you have some other explanation for these changes?

cb1000rider wrote:Did your employer pay for any part of your coverage, not outlined in your 13,200 premium?

What difference does it make? He's concerned about out of pocket expenses, not who paid for what. If you have a plan last year that cost you $5000 annually and your employer paid $7000 annually, and under Obamacare you get to pay for all of it at exactly the same cost and coverage, that still represents more than a 100% bump in your out of pocket expenses. Since the law was written in a way that encourages employers to dump their coverage (because the real goal is a single payer system), of course the employees are going to pick up the difference.

Now that they have gotten the people (like Beiruty) up in arms about the cost they can move to the next step - "subsidies" for all followed by a full and complete government "health care" system like Britain's. Eventually even the rubes will realize they've been robbed, but by then it won't matter.