Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Romney opposes Obamacare, even the parts no one else seems to have an issue with   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Democrats, Stephanie Cutter, pre-existing condition, defined benefit, romney, U.S. Supreme Court, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

1494 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:22 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-14 10:58:49 AM  

Serious Black: There's a very good reason people with pre-existing conditions are frequently denied coverage outright rather than simply charged an exorbitant price for coverage...


I think the whole thing is, mathematically, one of the strongest arguments for a functional but minimum-standard single-payer system. Even Milton Friedman's economics says the government should step in when it's not profitable for a private industry to do something and that something benefits the whole of the country (other examples being national parks and highways). Clearly, healthcare services are going to benefit everyone, and the fact of the matter is an insurer makes its profits when services aren't provided.
 
2012-06-14 10:59:57 AM  
It could be argued that Republicans have been actively trying to destroy America for a while now, but that would imply many of our elected officials have a goal besides enriching themselves and their friends.


Listen, I've lived in Chicago for 40 years and the Democrats here have done things to enrich themselves and friends that are so corrupt, sick and twisted that one can hardly believe it.

/thats the joke
//ugh
 
2012-06-14 11:00:08 AM  

qorkfiend: What sort of people have always had uninterrupted coverage from health insurance? Lucky people with decades-long careers at the same company, and those who can afford coverage on the private market, i.e. the wealthy.


Yeah, I've gotten lucky because my wife and I both have decent jobs, but "uninterrupted"? She got her job 4 years ago, and before that I had insurance through my job here, but I had only worked here a year and a half before that. Our coverage was "interrupted" when I moved here, it was interrupted by a month of looking for work, and then the 3 month probation period before bennies kick in.

On a side note, my wife's job was awesome... Bennies kicked in the first day of the first full month she worked there, no probation period. In other words, she started on like March 27 or so, and she had insurance coverage by April 1. Not only that, but it's actually pretty nice insurace, so we lucked out big time.
 
2012-06-14 11:02:35 AM  
Romney opposes Obamacare, even the parts no one else seems to have an issue with

FTFY
 
2012-06-14 11:03:03 AM  

Urine The Money: It could be argued that Republicans have been actively trying to destroy America for a while now, but that would imply many of our elected officials have a goal besides enriching themselves and their friends.


Listen, I've lived in Chicago for 40 years and the Democrats here have done things to enrich themselves and friends that are so corrupt, sick and twisted that one can hardly believe it.

/thats the joke
//ugh


Note the subtle differences between "Chicago" and "America."
 
2012-06-14 11:07:39 AM  

palelizard: Serious Black: There's a very good reason people with pre-existing conditions are frequently denied coverage outright rather than simply charged an exorbitant price for coverage...

I think the whole thing is, mathematically, one of the strongest arguments for a functional but minimum-standard single-payer system. Even Milton Friedman's economics says the government should step in when it's not profitable for a private industry to do something and that something benefits the whole of the country (other examples being national parks and highways). Clearly, healthcare services are going to benefit everyone, and the fact of the matter is an insurer makes its profits when services aren't provided.


You know the GOP has gone off the deep end when even hard right-wingers like Friedman and Hayek likely wouldn't support their policies.
 
2012-06-14 11:09:00 AM  
Romneybot algorithm #101:

Target: Obama
Previously successful tactics: be contrary to anything he says
Divisive issue: Healthcare

Conclusion: make statements saying everything about Obamacare is bad, even if it's good
 
2012-06-14 11:10:40 AM  

Serious Black: palelizard: Serious Black: There's a very good reason people with pre-existing conditions are frequently denied coverage outright rather than simply charged an exorbitant price for coverage...

I think the whole thing is, mathematically, one of the strongest arguments for a functional but minimum-standard single-payer system. Even Milton Friedman's economics says the government should step in when it's not profitable for a private industry to do something and that something benefits the whole of the country (other examples being national parks and highways). Clearly, healthcare services are going to benefit everyone, and the fact of the matter is an insurer makes its profits when services aren't provided.

You know the GOP has gone off the deep end when even hard right-wingers like Friedman and Hayek likely wouldn't support their policies.


Good! The GOP can purify itself of RINOs and then nothing can stop the party's plan to institute the supply side lessons of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
 
2012-06-14 11:12:19 AM  

Lawnchair: Note... Romney won't even farking answer the part about children *born* with 'pre-existing conditions'.


My niece who was born with Down syndrome and a hole in her heart. Luckily, my brother works for Boeing and they have a decent health insurance plan for their employees, but if he didn't...well, let's just say that there would be a charity can in every local Dairy Queen with her picture on it asking for donations.
 
2012-06-14 11:13:42 AM  
What I take away from this is the problem fof calling it "insurance"

Just as I can't call up State Farm today and ask to buy flood insurance and then submit a claim for a flood that occured last week. What do you do with people who didn't buy insurance for what ever reason in the past and now want it because they've discovered they're ill? Are you going to force a private company to pay claims on that? How could that company ever stay in business?

So you force everyone to buy insurance....well, thats argueably uncostitutional.

What Romenyis trying to do is set up Goverment pools to fund these cases. It's viable. Maybe not optimal but viable.

What kills me....(some pun inteneded) I don't see an aswer other than setting up Goverment run hospitals akin to goverment schools. (Yea, you can go private if you want to pay jsut like schools) Unfortunaly I see the level of public health care falling to the same levels of public education. Yikes.

Inovation and adancement are always going to come from the privatge sector....but if you force the private sector to take on and cover things such as prexisting conditions, they can't survive.

a catch 22 it seems
 
2012-06-14 11:14:58 AM  

Mikey1969: qorkfiend: What sort of people have always had uninterrupted coverage from health insurance? Lucky people with decades-long careers at the same company, and those who can afford coverage on the private market, i.e. the wealthy.

Yeah, I've gotten lucky because my wife and I both have decent jobs, but "uninterrupted"? She got her job 4 years ago, and before that I had insurance through my job here, but I had only worked here a year and a half before that. Our coverage was "interrupted" when I moved here, it was interrupted by a month of looking for work, and then the 3 month probation period before bennies kick in.

On a side note, my wife's job was awesome... Bennies kicked in the first day of the first full month she worked there, no probation period. In other words, she started on like March 27 or so, and she had insurance coverage by April 1. Not only that, but it's actually pretty nice insurace, so we lucked out big time.


I'm glad for you, but you're pretty much making the case for why the US health system sucks... the fact that you have coverage when you need it is based on "lucking out big time".

Its brutal that the GOP thinks the current system is just fine.
... have a pre-existing condition, you're screwed.
... get layed off an unable to afford paying insurance, you're screwed.

But why should Romney care. Hes got enough money to pay for his health care for him, ann, their horse, their kids, their grandkids, and any sister wives or mistresses that may arise. As well, it looks like 50.1% of the population is going to be stupid enough to vote for him despite his stated plans for screwing all non-millionaires. From his perspective, if America is stupid enough to elect him, they deserve whatever he gives them.
 
2012-06-14 11:15:13 AM  

2 grams: What I take away from this is the problem fof calling it "insurance"

Just as I can't call up State Farm today and ask to buy flood insurance and then submit a claim for a flood that occured last week. What do you do with people who didn't buy insurance for what ever reason in the past and now want it because they've discovered they're ill? Are you going to force a private company to pay claims on that? How could that company ever stay in business?

So you force everyone to buy insurance....well, thats argueably uncostitutional.

What Romenyis trying to do is set up Goverment pools to fund these cases. It's viable. Maybe not optimal but viable.

What kills me....(some pun inteneded) I don't see an aswer other than setting up Goverment run hospitals akin to goverment schools. (Yea, you can go private if you want to pay jsut like schools) Unfortunaly I see the level of public health care falling to the same levels of public education. Yikes.

Inovation and adancement are always going to come from the privatge sector....but if you force the private sector to take on and cover things such as prexisting conditions, they can't survive.

a catch 22 it seems


Not only are high-risk pools not optimal, but they aren't viable either.
 
2012-06-14 11:18:40 AM  
Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?
 
2012-06-14 11:20:53 AM  

keylock71: Yeah, they're going to replace it with Repuplicare...

Republicare can be summed up with one sentence:

"I got mine, so fark you."


I thought the slogan would be, "If you're not rich don't get sick, otherwise you're farked."
 
2012-06-14 11:21:47 AM  

LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?


He does, actually. How, you ask? Why don't you go and look over the 4.5 million lines of code his current campaign software suite runs and tell us how... it doesn't make much sense.
 
2012-06-14 11:23:15 AM  

LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?


No, see, Massachusetts is a state. It's okay if a state regulates economic inactivity and forces you to purchase a product on the free market.

When it's the federal government doing it, it's an utter abrogation of our rights.

Learn yourself a book sometime.
 
2012-06-14 11:24:04 AM  

LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?


Candidate Romney does not believe that the actions of Governor Romney are a good gauge on how Candidate Romney will run the county* and that to use those to attack him is unfair in the election and shows the desperation of the Obama campaign

(*unless the actions of Governor Romney will be beneficial to Candidate Romney**)
((**Offer not always valid in the US))
 
2012-06-14 11:24:16 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?

No, see, Massachusetts is a state. It's okay if a state regulates economic inactivity and forces you to purchase a product on the free market.

When it's the federal government doing it, it's an utter abrogation of our rights.

Learn yourself a book sometime.


sadly, this is what republicans believe.
 
2012-06-14 11:25:32 AM  

LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?


Yes!
 
2012-06-14 11:25:37 AM  

Mikey1969: qorkfiend: What sort of people have always had uninterrupted coverage from health insurance? Lucky people with decades-long careers at the same company, and those who can afford coverage on the private market, i.e. the wealthy.

Yeah, I've gotten lucky because my wife and I both have decent jobs, but "uninterrupted"? She got her job 4 years ago, and before that I had insurance through my job here, but I had only worked here a year and a half before that. Our coverage was "interrupted" when I moved here, it was interrupted by a month of looking for work, and then the 3 month probation period before bennies kick in.

On a side note, my wife's job was awesome... Bennies kicked in the first day of the first full month she worked there, no probation period. In other words, she started on like March 27 or so, and she had insurance coverage by April 1. Not only that, but it's actually pretty nice insurace, so we lucked out big time.


Good for you both, but so messed up that "luck" determines whether or not somebody gets medical care.
 
2012-06-14 11:26:03 AM  

FlashHarry: hillbillypharmacist: LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?

No, see, Massachusetts is a state. It's okay if a state regulates economic inactivity and forces you to purchase a product on the free market.

When it's the federal government doing it, it's an utter abrogation of our rights.

Learn yourself a book sometime.

sadly, this is what republicans believe.


No it isn't. A republican would never recommend learning from a book.
 
2012-06-14 11:30:05 AM  
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with covering preexisting conditions, but has a problem with the mandate is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

"I like dat horseless carriage o' yours, but I don't like that grumbly thing in the front. Whatchu call it again? The engine?"
 
2012-06-14 11:30:38 AM  

Aar1012: FlashHarry: hillbillypharmacist: LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?

No, see, Massachusetts is a state. It's okay if a state regulates economic inactivity and forces you to purchase a product on the free market.

When it's the federal government doing it, it's an utter abrogation of our rights.

Learn yourself a book sometime.

sadly, this is what republicans believe.

No it isn't. A republican would never recommend learning from a book that isn't the Prosperity Gospel.


FTFY.
 
2012-06-14 11:31:31 AM  

Aar1012: FlashHarry: hillbillypharmacist: LincolnLogolas: Does he oppose the parts that he signed into law in the state of Mass.?

No, see, Massachusetts is a state. It's okay if a state regulates economic inactivity and forces you to purchase a product on the free market.

When it's the federal government doing it, it's an utter abrogation of our rights.

Learn yourself a book sometime.

sadly, this is what republicans believe.

No it isn't. A republican would never recommend learning from a book.


Well, a Book, yes. A book, no.

Books and Deities (but only the One True One, or in His Tripartite Form) of any import get capitalized, the rest get burnt.
 
2012-06-14 11:31:44 AM  
Some things to consider:

See the fable of the the Ant and the Grasshopper Link

Insurance companies like "Ants". People who continuously have some form of insurance are responsible and should be covered for all conditions.

People who don't have continuous coverage are "Grasshoppers". They don't get insurance until they are sick. Then they expect the insurance company's customers to pay for their illness even though they have not been paying into the risk pool for it (thus raising premiums for all). Is that fair?

Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few. Also, one can buy COBRA or Continuation (depending on the size of the company one is leaving) to keep their coverage continuous.

It is not all as evil as it looks.
 
2012-06-14 11:33:41 AM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Some things to consider:

See the fable of the the Ant and the Grasshopper Link

Insurance companies like "Ants". People who continuously have some form of insurance are responsible and should be covered for all conditions.

People who don't have continuous coverage are "Grasshoppers". They don't get insurance until they are sick. Then they expect the insurance company's customers to pay for their illness even though they have not been paying into the risk pool for it (thus raising premiums for all). Is that fair?

Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few. Also, one can buy COBRA or Continuation (depending on the size of the company one is leaving) to keep their coverage continuous.

It is not all as evil as it looks.


Go away, Mitt
 
2012-06-14 11:35:00 AM  

WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: I'm glad for you, but you're pretty much making the case for why the US health system sucks... the fact that you have coverage when you need it is based on "lucking out big time".


Yep... The other thing that's broken is that the health insurance companies just ignore the laws anyway. I have back issues, and see a chiropractor semi-regularly. The one I went to see before I moved from AZ told me he gave a discount for paying cash. We went through with getting my initial care covered, he got 17 visits or something pre-approved. I can't remember if it's a federal law or an AZ state one, but the insurance companies have to pay or deny a claim within 30 days of billing. SInce it was pre-approved, it should have been a breeze. A year later, when I was just paying cash, he showed me why he doesn't like insurance. He was STILL trying to get the insurance company to pay up. A full year later. We pay out the ass, and the medical people provide the service, but they get screwed over by the insurance companies, and as a result, charge more so they can make money while they are battling with the Ins Companies.
 
2012-06-14 11:35:47 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Anyone who doesn't have a problem with covering preexisting conditions, but has a problem with the mandate is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

"I like dat horseless carriage o' yours, but I don't like that grumbly thing in the front. Whatchu call it again? The engine?"


Yes, there is literally no way to get people insured withot massive, permanent corporate handouts. Can't be done.
 
2012-06-14 11:37:15 AM  

Ned Stark: Wendy's Chili: Anyone who doesn't have a problem with covering preexisting conditions, but has a problem with the mandate is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

"I like dat horseless carriage o' yours, but I don't like that grumbly thing in the front. Whatchu call it again? The engine?"

Yes, there is literally no way to get people insured withot massive, permanent corporate handouts. Can't be done.


...there isn't, without a public option.
 
2012-06-14 11:41:14 AM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few.


Cold comfort when 62% of unemployed people take longer than 15 weeks to find another job.
 
2012-06-14 11:41:51 AM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Insurance companies like "Ants". People who continuously have some form of insurance are responsible and should be covered for all conditions.

People who don't have continuous coverage are "Grasshoppers". They don't get insurance until they are sick. Then they expect the insurance company's customers to pay for their illness even though they have not been paying into the risk pool for it (thus raising premiums for all). Is that fair?


Hence the point of the individual mandate; stop people from being grasshoppers and make them all ants.

Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few. Also, one can buy COBRA or Continuation (depending on the size of the company one is leaving) to keep their coverage continuous.

My individual insurance through my employer currently costs myself about $100 a month and my employer about $300 a month (yes, it's a very good deal). If I were to be fired and I wanted to continue my coverage through COBRA, I would have to pick up the employer's tab in addition to mine, so I would be paying about $400 a month. How the hell am I supposed to pay for all that when I just lost my primary/sole source of income?
 
2012-06-14 11:42:13 AM  

sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 500x365]

/This is literally his horse by the way


Look at his horse. His horse is amazing.
 
2012-06-14 11:42:56 AM  
At least in new York, uninterrupted includes up to a three (?) month gap in insurance to handle things like being between jobs. You can also wait up until three months after losing your insurance to get cobra, but you would have to pay the previous months also as if you had it from day one.
 
2012-06-14 11:42:59 AM  

Ned Stark: Wendy's Chili: Anyone who doesn't have a problem with covering preexisting conditions, but has a problem with the mandate is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

"I like dat horseless carriage o' yours, but I don't like that grumbly thing in the front. Whatchu call it again? The engine?"

Yes, there is literally no way to get people insured withot massive, permanent corporate handouts. Can't be done.


Not without soshulism.
 
2012-06-14 11:46:50 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Some things to consider:

See the fable of the the Ant and the Grasshopper Link

Insurance companies like "Ants". People who continuously have some form of insurance are responsible and should be covered for all conditions.

People who don't have continuous coverage are "Grasshoppers". They don't get insurance until they are sick. Then they expect the insurance company's customers to pay for their illness even though they have not been paying into the risk pool for it (thus raising premiums for all). Is that fair?

Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few. Also, one can buy COBRA or Continuation (depending on the size of the company one is leaving) to keep their coverage continuous.

It is not all as evil as it looks.

Go away, Mitt


Nope. Voted for Fartbongo. Will do it again in November.

Next!
 
2012-06-14 11:48:44 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few.

Cold comfort when 62% of unemployed people take longer than 15 weeks to find another job.


Well, there is that COBRA/Continuation thing you left out.
 
2012-06-14 11:51:08 AM  

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Wendy's Chili: Anyone who doesn't have a problem with covering preexisting conditions, but has a problem with the mandate is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

"I like dat horseless carriage o' yours, but I don't like that grumbly thing in the front. Whatchu call it again? The engine?"

Yes, there is literally no way to get people insured withot massive, permanent corporate handouts. Can't be done.

...there isn't, without a public option.


...And?
 
2012-06-14 11:51:38 AM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Well, there is that COBRA/Continuation thing you left out.


Which is very easy to afford when you have no source of income. I left it out because it's meaningless. When I try to figure out how to clean the dog sh*t out of my yard, I typically leave "backhoe" out of the equation because it's beyond my means. I'm funny like that.
 
2012-06-14 11:52:04 AM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Nope. Voted for Fartbongo. Will do it again in November.

Next!


Seriously... I do think there are a few flaws in your logic; several of which have been pointed out above. Have you ever been unemployed? For an extended period of time? Yes, the things you describe are available, but I don't think you understand that unemployment doesn't pay that much (if you can get it: I couldn't), and food and rent can take precedence over insurance premiums.
More people than ever have gaps in their coverage now. If we follow that path, the burden on emergency rooms is going to increase dramatically along with the costs to taxpayers
 
2012-06-14 11:52:10 AM  

Serious Black: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Insurance companies like "Ants". People who continuously have some form of insurance are responsible and should be covered for all conditions.

People who don't have continuous coverage are "Grasshoppers". They don't get insurance until they are sick. Then they expect the insurance company's customers to pay for their illness even though they have not been paying into the risk pool for it (thus raising premiums for all). Is that fair?

Hence the point of the individual mandate; stop people from being grasshoppers and make them all ants.

Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few. Also, one can buy COBRA or Continuation (depending on the size of the company one is leaving) to keep their coverage continuous.

My individual insurance through my employer currently costs myself about $100 a month and my employer about $300 a month (yes, it's a very good deal). If I were to be fired and I wanted to continue my coverage through COBRA, I would have to pick up the employer's tab in addition to mine, so I would be paying about $400 a month. How the hell am I supposed to pay for all that when I just lost my primary/sole source of income?


I agree. THERE is something that needs some reform. Maybe some form of Medicare for folks between jobs?
 
2012-06-14 11:55:13 AM  

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: Wendy's Chili: Anyone who doesn't have a problem with covering preexisting conditions, but has a problem with the mandate is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

"I like dat horseless carriage o' yours, but I don't like that grumbly thing in the front. Whatchu call it again? The engine?"

Yes, there is literally no way to get people insured withot massive, permanent corporate handouts. Can't be done.

...there isn't, without a public option.

...And?


...and we don't have a public option.
 
2012-06-14 11:56:58 AM  

2 grams: What Romenyis trying to do is set up Goverment pools to fund these cases. It's viable. Maybe not optimal but viable.


Privatize the parts that are profitable. Socialize the cost centers. That fraking works out great every time.
 
2012-06-14 11:57:03 AM  

HeartBurnKid: sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 500x365]

/This is literally his horse by the way

Look at his horse. His horse is amazing.


www.eurodressage.com

Tailcoat and tophat required for riding.
 
2012-06-14 11:57:25 AM  

HeartBurnKid: sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 500x365]

/This is literally his horse by the way

Look at his horse. His horse is amazing.


Mitt likes horses that are the right height.
 
2012-06-14 11:57:33 AM  
So we it seems if we have a strong thriving economy, we reduce the amount of uninsured people and taking care of those that fall through the gaps will be a relatively small %. Cool.

Why don't we do that then? After all I was just told that the Private Sector was doing "fine"

/it looked good on paper.
 
2012-06-14 11:58:07 AM  

Rann Xerox: HeartBurnKid: sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 500x365]

/This is literally his horse by the way

Look at his horse. His horse is amazing.

Mitt likes horses that are the right height.


It makes them easier to get on top of the car
 
2012-06-14 11:58:27 AM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: I agree. THERE is something that needs some reform. Maybe some form of Medicare for folks between jobs?


Maybe some sort of PUBLICly available OPTION to purchase insurance from an impartial (read: not necessarily profit-driven at the expense of all else) source.

I have no idea what to call it though...
 
2012-06-14 11:59:43 AM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Serious Black: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Insurance companies like "Ants". People who continuously have some form of insurance are responsible and should be covered for all conditions.

People who don't have continuous coverage are "Grasshoppers". They don't get insurance until they are sick. Then they expect the insurance company's customers to pay for their illness even though they have not been paying into the risk pool for it (thus raising premiums for all). Is that fair?

Hence the point of the individual mandate; stop people from being grasshoppers and make them all ants.

Also, as for losing one's job and coverage. For Small Group Insurance, there is an allowed "Gap" between the termination of one's previous coverage and the effective date of one's new coverage without penalty. The gap is 63 days in most states, 90 in a few. Also, one can buy COBRA or Continuation (depending on the size of the company one is leaving) to keep their coverage continuous.

My individual insurance through my employer currently costs myself about $100 a month and my employer about $300 a month (yes, it's a very good deal). If I were to be fired and I wanted to continue my coverage through COBRA, I would have to pick up the employer's tab in addition to mine, so I would be paying about $400 a month. How the hell am I supposed to pay for all that when I just lost my primary/sole source of income?

I agree. THERE is something that needs some reform. Maybe some form of Medicare for folks between jobs?


Why sew another patch onto your jeans when they're already several sizes too small and composed of parts from seven or eight different pairs? Why not go out and buy yourself a new pair that fit properly?
 
2012-06-14 11:59:56 AM  

sweetmelissa31: HeartBurnKid: sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 500x365]

/This is literally his horse by the way

Look at his horse. His horse is amazing.

[www.eurodressage.com image 240x305]

Tailcoat and tophat required for riding.


I thought a monocle was required, too.
 
2012-06-14 12:01:39 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Rann Xerox: HeartBurnKid: sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 500x365]

/This is literally his horse by the way

Look at his horse. His horse is amazing.

Mitt likes horses that are the right height.

It makes them easier to get on top of the car


It's Mitt and the pygmy pony by the dental floss bush!
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report