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 39
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Democrats, Stephanie Cutter, pre-existing condition, defined benefit, romney, U.S. Supreme Court, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

1489 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-14 10:19:09 AM
4 votes:
Yeah, they're going to replace it with Repuplicare...

Republicare can be summed up with one sentence:

"I got mine, so fark you."
2012-06-14 10:34:03 AM
3 votes:

Serious Black: I'm curious how the unleashing the magical powers of the free market will help people with pre-existing conditions purchase adequate health insurance when it already miserably fails to do so.


You could say that about virtually any republican policy anymore.

"I'm curious how sending troops to the middle of the farking desert to fight Arabs is going to create stability in the region when all it's done every other time is create anti-American despotic regimes".

"I'm curious how further cutting back government spending in a recession is going to improve the economy when every other time we've done it, it just made things worse"

"I'm curious how more tax cuts for the rich and big business is going to improve the economy this time when every other time we did it they just squirreled it away or used it for stock repurchase programs".
2012-06-14 10:32:40 AM
3 votes:
Romney's position - protecting people with pre-existing conditions so long as they've always had insurance - has been law since 1996, experts say. It does not immediately address people who have never had private health insurance, or who have had insurance but spent some time without, often because of financial circumstances and unemployment.


So despite what he claims, he has just told us that he doesn't give a flying fark about the unemployed? Anyone else pick that up?

What a prick.
2012-06-14 10:27:40 AM
3 votes:

Sock Ruh Tease: only Americans who have had constant, uninterrupted insurance coverage should be guaranteed access to a health plan, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.


....Lose your job? fark you peasant. You should have been smart enough not to work at a company that Bain Capital targeted for destruction.
2012-06-14 12:26:38 PM
2 votes:

Pincy: Until they get something that costs a lot of money, then they have to pay full price because they don't get the in-network price reduction. Also means they better have at minimum $100K/person ready to go at any time.


Part of that stems from the fact that the "in-network" price reduction comes from an "exclusive" contract (read: monopoly) making sure that every one of the insured goes to a particular podiatrist in a certain area. You can always go to a different podiatrist that is closer to you, or that you have been going to all of your life before you got this particular job, but you might as well not have insurance if you don't use the "in-network" physicians.

If you take the money you and your employer are paying in, and set aside everything that isn't being used for doctor's visits, you'd be surprised how quickly enough adds up to pay for an ambulance ride or a broken leg.

The main problem is that so many people that actually have insurance are dropped from the rolls once they come down with some kind of debilitating illness, like cancer or lupus. My mom's health insurance (she's currently working as a teacher for a private corporation operating an alternative school, so no state benefits) will drop her in a hearbeat if she is diagnosed with cancer, so she carries a separate cancer policy that she pays nearly $100/month for - and here's the fun part - she doesn't have cancer. She's never smoked or worked around asbestos or done anything to put her at high risk for cancer, which is the only reason she can get the cancer policy to begin with.

So, since insurance companies like to drop people when they have catastrophic illnesses that necessitate lifetime care, why do we have health insurance?

And for crying out loud, why the fark is the dialogue "People NEED health insurance! We have to make health insurance more accessible!"

No, they farking don't. No one needs health insurance. People need health care.
2012-06-14 11:59:43 AM
2 votes:

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 11:41:51 AM
2 votes:

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 11:33:41 AM
2 votes:

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 10:41:44 AM
2 votes:
Romney is a scumbag. Anyone who protests in favor of war that they are exempt from has no place governing others.
2012-06-14 10:38:10 AM
2 votes:
Yea, as someone with a pre-existing condition facing a nice out-of-pocket equivalent to 3 months of paychecks when I get booted off my parents plan, I wholeheartedly endorse the "Fark the GOP in the ass with a red hot poker" plan.
2012-06-14 10:17:53 AM
2 votes:
Maybe if he opposes Obamacare enough, he'll seem acceptably conservative to the 27%ers.
2012-06-14 04:03:49 PM
1 votes:
colithian
He's pretty much telling immigrants and the poor to go fark themselves.

Well duh. That's a core plank of the GOP platform.
2012-06-14 02:59:46 PM
1 votes:
The sick and twisted and typically GOP thing is that his farkin wife falls into the general category of people this would effect. Of course she will never have to worry given they could just buy a hostipal for her care. Talk about the ultimate fark you I've got mine. Romneycare: don't get sick or just die quick.

Also, I just don't get the hate over an individual mandate, aren't the Rebuplicans all about personal responsibility? Wouldn't they want to stop freeloaders? Oh wait they did, once upon a time when they weren't crazy shiat heads.
2012-06-14 02:56:04 PM
1 votes:
President troll is a succesful troll.
2012-06-14 02:34:33 PM
1 votes:

George Walker Bush: colithian: He really thinks that it's completely feasible for every single person to start their own business.

It is if the Government's not involved.


How many have you started?
2012-06-14 02:30:09 PM
1 votes:
There is an obvious, presidential troll afoot.
2012-06-14 12:58:16 PM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Pincy: ox45tallboy: mcwehrle: And at $400/month for the one rx, it just was unpossible.

Have you looked at the price of getting your drugs from other countries? We in the states get RAPED on prescription drug costs. I'm not saying you should buy from some guy in India with a .org from GoDaddy, but just take a look at what people in other countries pay for that same medication.

I don't even know what medication it is, but I'd bet you 3 to 2 it's going to be recognizably cheaper for the same medicine from the same manufacturer ANYWHERE else in the world.

Not disagreeing with you just saying that's it ridiculous that Americans have to shop the world in order to be able to afford their medicine.

Well, about that. Thanks to shiattons of money thrown at the Congress Critters by the drug lobbyists, it's technically illegal to re-import many of these drugs that were, in fact, produced here in the first place!


And didn't they also make it so that the government can't use its leverage to negotiate lower prescription drug prices?
2012-06-14 12:46:41 PM
1 votes:

George Walker Bush: Serious Black: George Walker Bush: Pre-existing conditions were covered by a pre-existing plan: charity.

That completely ignores the fact that millions of Americans demanded that Congress create Social Security because they were starving and broke.

That ignores the fact that the whims of large contingencies are not the responsibility of our constitutional republic.


Um, what? What the hell are the responsibilities of our constitutional republic if not to respond to the grievances of its citizens? And if you're trying to say Social Security is unconstitutional, it takes an incredibly tortured reading of the Taxing and Spending Clause to make it unconstitutional even by originalist standards.

And it did noting to alleviate their suffering and is the cause of ours.

Congress abolishing Social Security would recreate the very conditions that led to its introduction in the first place and would inevitably result in its recreation. And what kind of suffering is Social Security causing us anyways?
2012-06-14 12:12:44 PM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Serious Black: Man, I am getting a shiat-ton of mileage out of this article lately.

Why is it that people fail to realize that in order for insurance companies to function, most clients must pay in more money than what their health care actually costs.


Because most people don't understand how insurance works.

Most people who have health insurance would do better to pay for their health care out of pocket.

Until they get something that costs a lot of money, then they have to pay full price because they don't get the in-network price reduction. Also means they better have at minimum $100K/person ready to go at any time.
2012-06-14 12:07:53 PM
1 votes:

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

Republicare can be summed up with one sentence:

"I got mine, so fark you."

[fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 457x195]

If I were home I'd shoop a hand flipping the bird onto the end of that trunk


I agree with you here. Why is it that Republicans swear by Creationism but in reality practice Darwinism?
2012-06-14 11:58:27 AM
1 votes:

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 11:51:38 AM
1 votes:

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 11:41:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:37:15 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:44 AM
1 votes:
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 11:14:58 AM
1 votes:

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 10:58:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:53 AM
1 votes:
ROMNEY: "Well, we'll look at circumstance where someone was ill, and hasn't been insured so far. But people have had the chance to be insured. If you're working at an auto business, for instance."

LENO: "Right."

ROMNEY: "The companies carry insurance. They insure all their employees."


This is what Romneybot actually believes.

LENO: "What about pre-existing conditions in children? That - I mean, I know people who could not get insurance up until this Obamacare and now they're covered. Their pre-existing condition is covered. ...It seems like children and people with pre-existing conditions should be covered."

ROMNEY: "Yeah. Well, people who have been continuously insured, let's say someone's had a job for a while but insured, then they get real sick and they happen to lose a job, or change jobs, they find, gosh, I've got a pre-existing condition, I can't get insured. I'd say, no, no no. As long as you've been continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going forward. See, you have to take that problem away. You have to make sure the legislation doesn't allow insurance companies to reject people."


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

/ Also, when you are getting shown up as a douche by Jay frekking Leno, you are indeed a high-grade douche.
2012-06-14 10:52:45 AM
1 votes:
FTFA: "But you don't want everyone saying, 'I'm going to get back until I get sick,' and then go buy insurance."

If only there were some kind of mandate to prevent an individual from doing that.
2012-06-14 10:48:01 AM
1 votes:

Sock Ruh Tease: FTA: only Americans who have had constant, uninterrupted insurance coverage should be guaranteed access to a health plan, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.

To get health insurance, you need to have health insurance.

But to have health insurance, you need to have gotten health insurance...

Therefore, to have health insurance, you need health insurROMNEYBOT EXPERIENCED A CRITICAL ERROR AND NEEDS TO SHUT DOWN



Republicans have already fixed that little error on other subjects.

Hey, so I hear you want a job? Well to get this entry-level position, you need a couple years experience in the related field. To get that experience, you need this entry-level position. Why don't you work for free for a couple years and we might hire you after that.


So for health-insurance, from now on, we'll just need to pay into the system for a few years before they start covering us.
2012-06-14 10:44:35 AM
1 votes:
Romney liked Obamacare when he enacted the EXACT SAME PROGRAM in Massachusetts.
2012-06-14 10:40:42 AM
1 votes:

palelizard: Serious Black: I'm curious how the unleashing the magical powers of the free market will help people with pre-existing conditions purchase adequate health insurance when it already miserably fails to do so.

"reforms that empower states to make high risk pools more accessible by using cost reducing methods like risk adjustment and reinsurance". Gawd, don't you understand anything? Risk adjustment and reinsurance will make it all cheaper, and everyone will be able to afford their own healthcare.


Man, I am getting a shiat-ton of mileage out of this article lately.

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. They have too much knowledge about how much the treatments for their condition cost. That means they, better than anyone, can figure out whether the insurance policy a company offers to them is worth the price regardless of what that price is. There is simply no way to make plans for sick people actuarially sound. This is actually what happened with the PCIPs created by ObamaCares to bridge the gap until 2014: the people who knew their health care would cost more than the cost of the insurance plan bought coverage, and the people who knew it would cost less stayed out of the pool. That's why the average per capita cost of these pools was more than double what HHS actuaries originally predicted.

/note, I was not addressing this to you specifically
2012-06-14 10:35:50 AM
1 votes:
Romney opposes Romneycare?

What a douche. And a liar.
2012-06-14 10:35:35 AM
1 votes:
"Governor Romney supports reforms to protect those with pre-existing conditions from being denied access to a health plan while they have continuous coverage,"

So he thinks that insurance companies should not be able to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions ONLY if you already had insurance before you had the condition. Does he even understand WTF pre-existing even means?
2012-06-14 10:35:21 AM
1 votes:

Mikey1969: Romney's position - protecting people with pre-existing conditions so long as they've always had insurance - has been law since 1996, experts say. It does not immediately address people who have never had private health insurance, or who have had insurance but spent some time without, often because of financial circumstances and unemployment.


So despite what he claims, he has just told us that he doesn't give a flying fark about the unemployed? Anyone else pick that up?

What a prick.


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. Romney's not saying he doesn't give a flying fark about the unemployed (though this is clearly true), he's saying that the only people who should have access to health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions are rich people.
2012-06-14 10:33:33 AM
1 votes:
F*ck you, too, Mitt
2012-06-14 10:32:13 AM
1 votes:
Rmoney shamelessly supports big business regardless of any moral implications. You don't make money by letting children live.
2012-06-14 10:29:44 AM
1 votes:

Sock Ruh Tease: FTA: only Americans who have had constant, uninterrupted insurance coverage should be guaranteed access to a health plan, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.

To get health insurance, you need to have health insurance.

But to have health insurance, you need to have gotten health insurance...

Therefore, to have health insurance, you need health insurROMNEYBOT EXPERIENCED A CRITICAL ERROR AND NEEDS TO SHUT DOWN


Please. Any robot the GOP ran would have to be built with Paradox absorbing crumple zones. It's necessary to support the Rovian Spin Generator and the Republican business model.
2012-06-14 10:07:46 AM
1 votes:
I'm sorry GOP, your efforts to smear the affordable care act as "Obamacare" is going to backfire badly and give the blark muslin usurper a name that people will use for years to come to represent their ability to go to the hospital without going broke.

Good job!
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report