Politics and Religion
The good news, I'm learning how to weld at my local trade center.
I heard there are many new welders needed in oil exploration and extraction, and building the new Keystone pipeline 
So I pay for it myself.
The ACA just became law and it's a new law.
So a lot of the benefits have not started yet.
If you remember they did it over time.
Why do you think the GOP and their business buddies are trying to stop it?
When 2015 rolls around even more benefits will start!
The increase in people using it and picking the best health care package for them is suppose to improve the rates with Federal subsidies for people who need it.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-pros-and-cons/
http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/21/one-family-owned-business-fighting-obamacare/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
Also another thing most Democrats were cowards and refused to stand up for themselves or their party.
I said this before when you have voter suppression, SCOTUS, midterms and cowards as candidates.
The repubscum should have won big and it will be a different story in two years.
Also the color of a person skin does not change what he has supported with the GOP.
So Senator Scott is still a extremist just like the rest of the repubscum!
-- Modified on 11/8/2014 3:40:56 PM
You are treating the ACA as a miracle cure for the poor with catastrophic illness and financial pain while trapped behind your iron bar windows, security guards and opulent gates.
The lower middle class and poor will "almost always" go bankrupt if they develop a rare chronic disease like MLS, ALS, or any disease restricting their ability to work long term, regardless of their Health insurance plan. Once they can't work, they won't be able to pay their minimal insurance payment or afford enough food to survive.
When the poor with good health, with or without Health insurance, aren't working enough to pay their bills, it's more often than not a short trip to insolvency and bad health.
It sounds like you are in favor of the ACA because it's fair by helping your wallet versus yesteryear, when the poor downtrodden walked into the emergency room for free , for the Flu or terminal care, without an insurance policy.
Perhaps you didn't answer my OP question, instead succumbing to your own cravings , because you don't fathom how the majority of poor and lower middle class live week to week.
Making laws that give the poor Health insurance while inadvertently taking away part of their income and ability to feed themselves, is not my idea of truly helping the less fortunate, though
it does looks great on paper, especially among government paper shufflers.
As I stated in my OP, my biggest issue with the ACA is the 30 hour rule . Politicians should know by now, most CEO's are much wiser than them, and usually find a way to duck around new rules
This isn't the first time laws designed by bumbling bureaucrats to help the poor in one way, hurt them another way.
If the government's motive had truly been to help the poor when writing ACA laws, they would have required large Companies with employees working one hour or more, guaranteed Health Care.
In my OP I asked for a 42 hour requirement since I would rather work more than less.
If you are really concerned about the poor and their finances during times of catastrophic loss, why not give lower income employees a disability income insurance policy, at the same pay as their annual income, similar to the DI policy you and your neighbors have ?
But I would respectfully suggest that this comparison is really only valid if you stay healthy and don’t need to use the health care package very often.
If, for example, you developed leukemia and needed a bone marrow transplant under your pre-ACA package you would hit the annual benefit limit in a couple of months. Or if you developed a chronic disease like MS, ALS or on anything requiring dialysis, you would hit the $1 million lifetime limit long before you died. In both cases, you would have no ability to pay for the essential health care you needed.
Under the ACA, there is no “annul limit” or lifetime limit under your policy. If catastrophe occurs, you are protected.
Now, you may say “hey, I’m willing to take that risk. I don’t like the government telling me to act responsibly.” That is not an entirely unreasonable position. But the problem is, when you can’t pay for your health care, someone else has to do it. So when I hear that objection from the healthy - and it is always the healthy who raise it - it always rings phony to me.
The bottom line – more work for you and fewer hookers – but you are now protected for life so long as you keep paying those premiums. And you will be entitled to a substantial subsidy to help pay those premiums. Before we start changing the ACA to get rid of some of the troubling but symbiotic provisions, let’s make sure we really understand what we really have now.
You are a guy I usually don't read or reply to, since you are boxed in your own blind container and usually too ignorant to talk to.
I'll give you extra credit today, for giving your version of a straight answer to
my OP question.
Lower income people did not have insurance you fool. That’s what is called uninsured. Uninsured has fallen in 2014 and expected to fall even more in 2015.
Change should be universal coverage and single payer and let those who can afford private insurance have their own. This is what is done in all industrialized countries where intelligent people live.