Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

79% of Obamacare Enrollees Qualify for Subsidies
Breitbart ^ | Jan. 14, 2014 | Tony Lee

Posted on 01/14/2014 5:04:53 AM PST by PROCON

Nearly four in five Americans who have enrolled in Obamacare need taxpayer-funded subsidies to pay for their premiums. According to the White House, 79% of those enrolled in Obamacare need subsidies because they cannot otherwise afford the premiums that have, in some cases, nearly doubled. Only 21% did not need subsidies.

As Businessweek noted, people "earning up to four times the poverty rate—as much as $96,000 a year for a family of four"—can get Obamacare subsidies from the federal government.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0bamacare; incomeredistribution; zerocare
No surprise here, income redistribution as designed.

I don't think that even with a 'pub Senate in November we can undo this monstrosity.

1 posted on 01/14/2014 5:04:53 AM PST by PROCON
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PROCON
OK We've gone from the system is broken, can never work, no one is signing up, five people from the state of __________ ... ha ha ha lol lol lol

to

percentages of people that are succeeding, glitching, getting, not in system ...


I'm confused.

The law apparently is the law and people apparently ARE signing up and it is apparently slow going but it IS going.

2 posted on 01/14/2014 5:09:44 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

New bumper sticker:

“Honk if I’m Paying for Your Health Insurance”


3 posted on 01/14/2014 5:10:29 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Considered a roaring success by Dems.

This is exactly what they wanted. America on welfare.

And (many of) those who had insurance that they paid for had it taken away.


4 posted on 01/14/2014 5:12:47 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
I refuse. Period. I will not sign up for their forced murder for pay scheme. Fine, take my money, flog me in the public square, it just isn't going to happen. If I die because they won't let me have medical CARE (This other crap is just bad insurance), so be it. I will be able to go before my Creator having made a stand.
5 posted on 01/14/2014 5:15:03 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Pretty silent ride you’ll have there...


6 posted on 01/14/2014 5:17:28 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

“I don’t think that even with a ‘pub Senate in November we can undo this monstrosity. “

I figure if Pubbies pick up all 16 Democrat seats and keep all of theirs AND that they’d all vote to override a presidential veto we’re still roughly 5 votes short of the 67 needed.


7 posted on 01/14/2014 5:17:51 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
Oops, misread your post..

Honk if I'm paying for your health insurance...

missed that.

8 posted on 01/14/2014 5:18:10 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

How to break a bank in a few easy steps


9 posted on 01/14/2014 5:18:32 AM PST by bestintxas (Obamacare = Obamascrewed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Yeah ... me too ... but I thought the nation pretty much understood what a POS this was and would ALSO refuse.

I guess not.

social workers must be making visits and telling people, "Y'know ... they're going to drop your card unless you sign up for this new plan ..... no, it won't affect your coverage ... etc. "

10 posted on 01/14/2014 5:19:16 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
Nearly four in five Americans who have enrolled in Obamacare need taxpayer-funded subsidies to pay for their premiums.

That's all the proof I need to know that what I've been saying all along is true: Obamacare is nothing more than one giant wealth redistribution scheme with the Government choosing winners and losers.

Are you a taxpayer: YOU LOSE!

11 posted on 01/14/2014 5:19:16 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

I don’t think the subsidy pays for everything. I think they still have to pay something.

And you are dealing with people who are used to paying for nothing. As a matter of fact, they wanted an Obamacare check every month.


12 posted on 01/14/2014 5:20:43 AM PST by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
The sooner this crap of a policy dies the better.
The longer it keeps going the more it will drain the Govt Bank.

Same goes for ZERO we need to expel his sorry Butt. . . . .

13 posted on 01/14/2014 5:21:33 AM PST by DeaconRed (GOD: Please send us one more Ronald Reagan. Soon. Thanks Deacon Red. PS It ain't Christie. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
79% of those who have signed up qualify for subsidies.

To the extent Obamacare was actually designed, it was allegedly intended that the majority of subsidies for lower income people would be covered by having those who do not qualify for them pay "a little extra" on their premiums - with some random "government" money (read: taxpayer funds) thrown in for good measure.

I'm no mathemagician, but the 21% cannot subsidize the 79% without their rates being something on the order of four times what they would be if they were not required to subsidize others.

So yes, it IS going...

...straight down the financial crapper.

Side Note: In other words, it is going exactly as the Obamites want it to go - so that in a couple of years they can jump in and "save" us with a "single payer" system.

The bottom line is, the old "flawed" system had myriad fewer problems than Obamacare has, and will continue to have.

14 posted on 01/14/2014 5:27:05 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
Ops, I didn't take in to account declining subsidies as income goes up. So, corrected sentence:

I'm no mathemagician, but the 21% cannot subsidize the 79% without their rates being something on the order of twice what they would be if they were not required to subsidize others

I told you I wasn't a mathemagician.

15 posted on 01/14/2014 5:31:20 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

And the insurance companies are lining up for their bailouts, too. The best way to kill ObamaCare is to refuse to subsidize the insurance companies that got in bed with Obama and Pelosi because they had written in these bailout provisions.
Call/email your Congressman and tell him to defund the insurance companies.


16 posted on 01/14/2014 5:33:04 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Not all of them though. I think they factored that in when planning this slice of hell. Subsidies go all the way up until an income somewherein the 80k range if I am not mistaken.


17 posted on 01/14/2014 5:35:44 AM PST by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: riri

According to my sister who makes about $22k a year, she will still have to pay over $100 a month which is $100 a month over what she pays now...which is nothing because she has no health insurance. And her meds will cost more (?). So she isn’t happy.


18 posted on 01/14/2014 5:48:20 AM PST by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

State partially controlled Medical Insurance is Socialism, where competition is allowed.

State totally controlled Medical Insurance is Communism, where competition is not allowed.

Socialist Medical Insurance constitutes a partial violation of US Anti-Trust Laws.

Communist Medical Insurance constitutes a full violation of US Anti-Trust Laws.

Senator Harry Reid supports a single payor Medical Insurance system, totally controlled by the US Federal Government.


19 posted on 01/14/2014 5:53:31 AM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Is it Catch 22 that if you get a subsidy on Obamacare you have to claim it as income on a Fed tax return?


20 posted on 01/14/2014 5:56:28 AM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

well, DUH! It’s only attractive to those seeking freebies.


21 posted on 01/14/2014 6:04:53 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

“Nearly four in five Americans who have enrolled in Obamacare need taxpayer-funded subsidies to pay for their premiums”

Also consider, there is a cut before the subsidies kick in wherein those people are shunted off to Medicaid! Medicaid is paid for by the taxpayers entirely!


22 posted on 01/14/2014 6:05:31 AM PST by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Renegade

“As Businessweek noted, people “earning up to four times the poverty rate—as much as $96,000 a year for a family of four”—can get Obamacare subsidies from the federal government.”

er strik that last phrase, they get their subsidies from the taxpayers.


23 posted on 01/14/2014 6:06:47 AM PST by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

They’re getting the low hanging fruit, people who wanted insurance but for whatever reason did not have it before. These people are liabilities. They won’t be funding and supporting the system, they’ll be a drain on it.

After these people, it’s all up hill. Getting people to sign up, to pay the bill, is going to be harder and harder.


24 posted on 01/14/2014 6:07:14 AM PST by ryan71 (The Partisans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
Getting people to sign up, to pay the bill, is going to be harder and harder.

More like "harsher and harsher", because they're going to start using the stick to force people to sign up.

25 posted on 01/14/2014 6:08:17 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Renegade

Of course- benefits from Fedgov are taxable income, with the exception of EITC.


26 posted on 01/14/2014 6:12:55 AM PST by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

...and the kicker of this is the person who will be honking at you will probably be driving a nicer car than you...


27 posted on 01/14/2014 6:20:27 AM PST by Fedupwithit (Your opinion: It's all yours....don't expect me to listen to it, or even acknowledge it..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“The law apparently is the law and people apparently ARE signing up and it is apparently slow going but it IS going.”

But only with huge government subsidies.


28 posted on 01/14/2014 6:23:44 AM PST by WILLIALAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

“I figure if Pubbies pick up all 16 Democrat seats and keep all of theirs AND that they’d all vote to override a presidential veto we’re still roughly 5 votes short of the 67 needed.”

The minute Harry Reid pulled his stunt and with Obama deciding which laws to obey, we need to get the majority in both houses, create our own rules and then tie up every agency with litigation so they cannot move.


29 posted on 01/14/2014 6:24:42 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz ("The GOP fights its own base with far more vigor than it employs in fighting the Dims.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
I figure if Pubbies pick up all 16 Democrat seats and keep all of theirs AND that they’d all vote to override a presidential veto we’re still roughly 5 votes short of the 67 needed.

If the 2014 election is anywhere near that sweeping, and we can unequivocally point to Obamacare as the reason, I think we'll be able to pick up those additional votes, should it come to that. There's a lot of what-ifs between here and there, though.

30 posted on 01/14/2014 6:35:23 AM PST by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

As the only reason someone would use those awful web sites is to get a subsidy, I’m surprised it isn’t 100%.


31 posted on 01/14/2014 6:38:15 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Anyone who currently receives employer based healthcare and makes an amount of money that makes them eligible for subsidies should probably expect to be tossed into the exchanges this fall. Why wouldn’t a company get rid of that expense if the gov is promising to pick up the tab. I think they will do what Walgreens did, and create their own company specific exchange plan.


32 posted on 01/14/2014 6:55:45 AM PST by ToastedHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
This does not end with simply income redistribution and the centralization of the health system and we go on "as usual".

No, it ends with the deficit becoming unmanageable and the economy breaking down. Once the EBT cards start flashing NO FUNDS, the wholesale riots and looting begin and then the massive marauding of the nearby wealthier areas will start, spreading out from there. Local control within the cities will be lost and the President will declare martial law and step in. Then the real distribution and government clampdown will begin.

This will end badly. Very badly. Violently.

Look to the Russian revolution starting in 1917 for a template. The Romanovs (previous long term government) are gone, the Provisional Government (interim, mostly ineffective, GOP era) has collapsed, the Mensheviks (current establishment GOP fellow travelers) are still squabbling but the Bolsheviks (hard-left Democrats) are now the ones really in control of the central ruling core and functions of the country,... and their final consolidation of power has begun and effective opposition is fragmented.

33 posted on 01/14/2014 7:10:36 AM PST by Gritty (Liberals think living your life free of welfare, EBT, and government nannies is "cheating"-J Hawkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
I'm no mathemagician, but the 21% cannot subsidize the 79% without their rates being something on the order of four times what they would be if they were not required to subsidize others.

Ahh, but the 21% are not subsidizing the 79% on their own. We're ALL subsidizing the 79%. Even those of us who have employer-provided health insurance.

34 posted on 01/14/2014 7:53:43 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

The way it was explained to me was that I might as well go for the subsidy

If my wife and I make over X amount this year I will have to reimburse our government for the amount of the subsidy. No penalties ....no interest.

My income has varied a lot in the last 5 years, I may be a long way from qualifying but who knows ?

If this was based purely on 2013 income I doubt we would qualify
but with no penalties why not use some of my money during the year and then write the government a check when I know what my situation is ? Also I have a lot of deductions so I will be looking at the base line and trying to adjust the numbers on my taxes so that we do not cross the threshold


35 posted on 01/14/2014 8:18:05 AM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie
The way it was explained to me was that I might as well go for the subsidy

From what I've read, in order to get the subsidy you have to buy the policy via the exchange. If your income drops enough to put you in the subsidy range, I would think that is a qualifying event to purchase on the exchange. There are 2 ways to take the credit. You can take the advanced credit that goes directly to the insurance companies to help pay the premium or you can reconcile the difference when you file your taxes.

36 posted on 01/14/2014 9:08:48 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: knarf
I have no doubt the Social Serpents and every other level of official liar is hard at the full court press trying to get people to sign up. The only way to defeat this is noncompliance. That beat the Canadian long gun registry, and it can beat this, especially if people don't sign up to the level of 75% or more.

I spoke with a young man today who said at 23 and single it would cost him over 20K a year to sign up. At the hourly wage where he was living, that would have left squat to live on, not counting any subsidy.

37 posted on 01/14/2014 9:09:43 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

“If this provision were read literally, no “qualified individuals” would exist in the thirty-four states with federally-facilitated Exchanges, as none of these states is a “State that established [an] Exchange.”
The federal Exchanges would have no customers, and no purpose. Such a construction must be avoided, if at all possible.” - U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, a Clinton nominee, in his ruling on the lawsuit Halbig v. Sebelius, which challenged the legality of subsidies issued by the federal exchange.


38 posted on 01/22/2014 2:28:39 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson