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.

(MassLive)   Obama administration releases simplified health insurance application form. (1) Enter your total income and assetts. (2) Enter the amount from line 1. This is your insurance premium   (masslive.com) divider line 57
    More: PSA, obama, health insurance, Obama administration, Families USA, tax forms, pay stubs, health cares  
•       •       •

3196 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 11:15:04 AM
hurrrrrrr
*flaps arms against chest*
 
2013-04-30 11:16:10 AM

hillbillypharmacist: hurrrrrrr
*flaps arms against chest*


that pretty much sums it up.
 
2013-04-30 11:58:48 AM
Identification, citizenship and immigration status, as well as income details, are supposed to be verified in close to real time through a federal "data hub" that will involve pinging Social Security, Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-04-30 12:18:32 PM

vernonFL: Identification, citizenship and immigration status, as well as income details, are supposed to be verified in close to real time through a federal "data hub" that will involve pinging Social Security, Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service.

What could possibly go wrong?


Let's be perfectly honest. We live under the illusion of freedom and personal privacy. Governments, not just ours, can at any time know pretty much anything they want to know about you, and do pretty much anything they want to you. And most corporations already know just about everything there is to know about you, unless there are regulations against it.

Privacy is dead. It would at the very least be nice if we had better crypto and multi-factor authentication, though.
 
2013-04-30 12:26:31 PM
Anyone have a clue about what the author is babbling about? This is the first I've heard about an application form at the federal level. I was under the assumption that the states would be handling the details when it comes to those that need assistance. But then again there are a lot of states opting out and letting the feds run it for them.
 
2013-04-30 12:28:48 PM

hillbillypharmacist: hurrrrrrr
*flaps arms against chest*


So, that's thread.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 12:30:03 PM
Didn't even try.
 
2013-04-30 12:35:54 PM
Well, for a lot of people that is an improvement.
 
2013-04-30 12:36:34 PM
What? No penis size?
 
2013-04-30 12:38:05 PM
"That's because applicants will have to provide detailed snapshots of their incomes to see whether they qualify for government assistance. Individuals will have to gather tax returns, pay stubs and other financial records before filling out the application."

Sounds like the forest they cut down every time I try for a mortgage refinance.
 
2013-04-30 12:38:18 PM
Isn't that Libertarian Think Tank health plan just great folks? We should implement more Republican ideas like Obamacare!
 
2013-04-30 12:40:47 PM
www.tealdragon.net

Yes, we get it already. Libs gonna steal yur money.  We know.
 
2013-04-30 12:50:25 PM
So I'm guessing that in the USA you can't do your taxes by sending a SMS yet?
 
2013-04-30 12:52:19 PM
This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?
 
2013-04-30 12:52:23 PM

BitwiseShift: What? No penis size?


Mine is so big, I now have to claim it as a dependent.

Thanks a lot Fartbongo care!
 
2013-04-30 12:59:26 PM
Line 3. Multiply Line 2 by zero.  This is subby's IQ.
 
2013-04-30 01:00:20 PM

praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?


Private corporation means it's more efficient, which is why it costs more.
 
2013-04-30 01:00:27 PM
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
 
2013-04-30 01:02:12 PM

praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?


It's about 50% cheaper.
 
2013-04-30 01:06:08 PM

Shakin_Haitian: praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?

Private corporation means it's more efficient, which is why it costs more.


"Efficient".  This is that Earth thing called humor, right?
 
2013-04-30 01:10:44 PM

HeartBurnKid: [www.tealdragon.net image 437x512]

Yes, we get it already. Libs gonna steal yur money.  We know.


That's actually pretty funny.
 
2013-04-30 01:16:35 PM

praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?


It's actually limited to your total income and assets.
 
2013-04-30 01:35:54 PM
bdub77: vernonFL: Identification, citizenship and immigration status, as well as income details, are supposed to be verified in close to real time through a federal "data hub" that will involve pinging Social Security, Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service.

What could possibly go wrong?

Let's be perfectly honest. We live under the illusion of freedom and personal privacy. Governments Social Media Sites, not just ours, can at any time know pretty much anything they want to know about you, and do pretty much anything they want to you. And most corporations already know just about everything there is to know about you, unless there are regulations against it.

Privacy is dead. It would at the very least be nice if we had better crypto and multi-factor authentication, though.


FTFY,
/Checks in on Foursquare
 
2013-04-30 01:39:45 PM

praxcelis: Shakin_Haitian: praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?

Private corporation means it's more efficient, which is why it costs more.

"Efficient".  This is that Earth thing called humor, right?


If it doesn't make a profit, it isn't worth doing.

Governments don't make a profit.  This is why Republicans hate Government.
 
2013-04-30 01:41:23 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?

It's actually limited to your total income and assets.


Dammit, Fartbongo! Keep away from my ass!
 
2013-04-30 01:48:37 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: praxcelis: Shakin_Haitian: praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?

Private corporation means it's more efficient, which is why it costs more.

"Efficient".  This is that Earth thing called humor, right?

If it doesn't make a profit, it isn't worth doing.

Governments don't make a profit.  This is why Republicans hate Government.


The very fact that no one questions the necessity of having a profit-making corporation standing between people and healthcare, one whose highest priority is to the shareholders, speaks volumes.  We as a nation have so deified "the market" that we allow it abuses we usually decry third-world states for.
 
2013-04-30 01:51:12 PM

HeartBurnKid: [www.tealdragon.net image 437x512]

Yes, we get it already. Libs gonna steal yur money.  We know.


I wonder how far back that joke goes. I'm sure I was seeing it well before Clinton.
 
2013-04-30 01:53:12 PM
Wow, the herp is being derped pretty hard today.
 
2013-04-30 02:22:50 PM
Still waiting for Republicans to pass a law that will cut SS benefits to cranky old white men.  *Not* the threat of raising the retirement age of people who've been paying in for decades, and will get less, but who are not drawing benefits right now.  Cutting benefits to cranky old white men, the "we'ze got us a spendin' problem, an' it's 0Bummer sendin' them slave reparations to his...you know...*them* people" crowd.  Telling them, you're going to see actual cuts to the amount you get every month just before you drive your Lincoln to the casino.

Until then, sorry, but I'm not listening.
 
2013-04-30 02:38:02 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Line 3. Multiply Line 2 by zero.  This is subby's IQ.


More like divide by zero, amirite?  Oh CRA
 
2013-04-30 02:44:42 PM

praxcelis: The very fact that no one questions the necessity of having a profit-making corporation standing between people and healthcare, one whose highest priority is to the shareholders, speaks volumes.


Back in the 80's when the whole HMO thing was just getting rolling (and I worked for an insurance company), my reaction was "Wait, we're going to cut costs by adding another profit center?"
 
2013-04-30 02:52:11 PM

sammyk: Anyone have a clue about what the author is babbling about? This is the first I've heard about an application form at the federal level.


A federally-managed exchange will handle the insurance pool in any state that can't or doesn't want to manage its own insurance pool under the HCR law.  At present, that's about half the population of the US's worth of states.

Assumably this is the application form for those pools, which will rely on Federally-set standard procedures and evaluations rather than state ones.

//Texas is actually one of the states that went with the federal exchange, go figure.  Always figured us for usually being  against nationalizing stuff, but apparently we'd prefer it to letting our state-level idiots make any more decisions re: medical care.
 
2013-04-30 03:11:06 PM
I know there was some bastard whose mind works just like mine involved in the creation of this.

Limit insurance companies profits to 20% of premiums.
Don't blink at $80 boxes of generic facial tissues on the hospital bills.
Profit.

And if you tried to limit the hospital markups to 100% over actual costs they'd just find a more expensive supplier. It's something we learned from Halliburton.

It's a totally distorted market. The costs for care are higher because you aren't paying for them, the market is between hospital and insurance company. The market you play in is doubly distorted because you seem to have an expectation for the insurance to cover everything. Imagine, if you will, if everyone expected automotive insurance to cover routine maintenance that would be covered by a co-pay and the actual cost wasn't ever posted for you to see until there's an explanation of benefits down the line. Soon you'd find yourself saying "damn, when did an oil change go from $40 to $400. What's this, 'ovine sebum derivative and volanic pumice epidermal recovery system'? They're charging $40 for a shot of soap?"
 
2013-04-30 03:19:17 PM
Done in one
 
2013-04-30 03:26:03 PM

Jim_Callahan: sammyk: Anyone have a clue about what the author is babbling about? This is the first I've heard about an application form at the federal level.

A federally-managed exchange will handle the insurance pool in any state that can't or doesn't want to manage its own insurance pool under the HCR law.  At present, that's about half the population of the US's worth of states.

Assumably this is the application form for those pools, which will rely on Federally-set standard procedures and evaluations rather than state ones.

//Texas is actually one of the states that went with the federal exchange, go figure.  Always figured us for usually being  against nationalizing stuff, but apparently we'd prefer it to letting our state-level idiots make any more decisions re: medical care.


North Carolina is another one that is letting the feds setup the exchange. I'm actually happy about that. Have you seen the stupid crap our current crop of teabaggers have been doing? No way no how do I want them touching it.

The optimist in me hopes that a state no one expects anything out of does something that truely works with the exchanges and it becomes a model for other states. The pessimist thinks it will be the other way around and a group like ALEC will create a model to intentionally make ACA fail.
 
2013-04-30 03:28:22 PM
Given the kind of people who would need it; they would have to dumb down the forms.
 
2013-04-30 03:29:08 PM
It's not complicated if you aren't stupid. Obviously this is aptly pandering to the dissenting base.
 
2013-04-30 03:39:21 PM
The original form that was released was around 21 pages long.  It asked for basic information like:

Name
Birthday
Contact Info
Income/Tax info
Relationship Status
Demographic Information (not required)

And it repeated this for SIX people.  So 12 of the 21 pages were repeats.  3 of the other pages were disclaimers.  The rest were to discuss if you had any current insurance and who it covered.  To say the application was complex is an overstatement.  Take a look at the Food Stamps application for some states.   For PA their paper application is 18 pages long and far more complex.
 
2013-04-30 03:53:22 PM

praxcelis: This would be different from Blue Cross's approach how, again?


BC/BS would never limit themselves based on your income, they'll charge much more than you'll ever make.
 
2013-04-30 03:59:26 PM

Satanic_Hamster: evilmrsock: [i.imgur.com image 289x98]

I'm sorry, this was a great farking way to come into this thread.

I got him as: "Can put complex right wing arguments in simple easy to understand terms "


Word choice?
 
2013-04-30 04:10:23 PM
There is a very simple way to avoid any complex forms: don't ask the government to subsidize your insurance. Get it through your employer or pay the tab yourself and you don't need to worry about documenting anything.

When someone who I, as an insured person and taxpayer, am already paying ER and other health costs for someone and am now switching to buying them insurance, I don't feel it is unfair to ask them to provide some documentation needed to figure out how much of their insurance costs I will be subsidizing.

And if the amount to subsidize is zero, they don't need to fill out anything.

//if there was going to be exchanges I would have liked to see them open to everyone. It would have been nice to see a system where you could take the $X paid by the employer, check to see if cheaper coverage was available on the exchange, move your employer $ over and pocket the difference. That would have delivered some real downward cost pressure.
 
2013-04-30 04:18:23 PM

bdub77: vernonFL: Identification, citizenship and immigration status, as well as income details, are supposed to be verified in close to real time through a federal "data hub" that will involve pinging Social Security, Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service.

What could possibly go wrong?

Let's be perfectly honest. We live under the illusion of freedom and personal privacy. Governments, not just ours, can at any time know pretty much anything they want to know about you, and do pretty much anything they want to you. And most corporations already know just about everything there is to know about you, unless there are regulations against it.

Privacy is dead. It would at the very least be nice if we had better crypto and multi-factor authentication, though.


We want privacy until we run into a situation where we expect the government to know everything, and then we're outraged that they don't.  Case in point: Boston Marathon bombing.
 
2013-04-30 04:19:52 PM

wozzeck: There is a very simple way to avoid any complex forms: don't ask the government to subsidize your insurance. Get it through your employer or pay the tab yourself and you don't need to worry about documenting anything.

When someone who I, as an insured person and taxpayer, am already paying ER and other health costs for someone and am now switching to buying them insurance, I don't feel it is unfair to ask them to provide some documentation needed to figure out how much of their insurance costs I will be subsidizing.

And if the amount to subsidize is zero, they don't need to fill out anything.

//if there was going to be exchanges I would have liked to see them open to everyone. It would have been nice to see a system where you could take the $X paid by the employer, check to see if cheaper coverage was available on the exchange, move your employer $ over and pocket the difference. That would have delivered some real downward cost pressure.


They are and you can, provided you can clear it with your current employer.
 
2013-04-30 05:42:44 PM
" One section eliminated in the new form asked applicants if they also wanted to register to vote. Some congressional Republicans had criticized that, calling it politically motivated."

(cp from sfgate article)

Yeah, we can't have none of them freeloaders votin, ya know.
 
2013-04-30 06:08:29 PM

HeartBurnKid: [www.tealdragon.net image 437x512]

Yes, we get it already. Libs gonna steal yur money.  We know.


memedepot.com
 
2013-04-30 06:40:41 PM

praxcelis: The very fact that no one questions the necessity of having a profit-making corporation standing between people and healthcare, one whose highest priority is to the shareholders, speaks volumes.  We as a nation have so deified "the market" that we allow it abuses we usually decry third-world states for.


"The Market" is the reason you dont go to a barber to get a tooth pulled and is why cancer and HIV arent death sentences anymore.

I'll let you in on a secret.  The evil, mean, ruthless pharmaceutical industry didn't research cancer treatment drugs out of the kindness of their hearts.  An expected return on investment is what keeps people in the lab, some of them dedicating their entire lives to medical research.
 
2013-04-30 06:44:40 PM
bdub77:
Privacy is dead. It would at the very least be nice if we had better crypto and multi-factor authentication, though.

Privacy -of the sort you're talking about- is a Victorian construct which never existed in the first place.
 
2013-04-30 06:51:38 PM

o5iiawah: praxcelis: The very fact that no one questions the necessity of having a profit-making corporation standing between people and healthcare, one whose highest priority is to the shareholders, speaks volumes.  We as a nation have so deified "the market" that we allow it abuses we usually decry third-world states for.

"The Market" is the reason you dont go to a barber to get a tooth pulled and is why cancer and HIV arent death sentences anymore.

I'll let you in on a secret.  The evil, mean, ruthless pharmaceutical industry didn't research cancer treatment drugs out of the kindness of their hearts.  An expected return on investment is what keeps people in the lab, some of them dedicating their entire lives to medical research.


That would be a very valid point, if I were talking about pharmaceutical companies.  (Although I'll point out that they seem great at coming out with new treatments every few years, but no actual curatives.  Wonder why a for-profit company would do that?)

I was talking about insurance companies, whose obligation to the shareholders require them to make decisions about healthcare independent of the medical provider, to maximize cost containment to the insurance company.  Who can tell you that you've had enough palliative care, now, just go off and suffer while we refuse to pay for your medicine.  Who can decline coverage because their attorneys say it's someone else's for-profit insurance company you need to argue with.  Who make life-altering decisions on your behalf not because you need treatment but because it's bad for their profit margin to let you have it.

/Yes, I'm rather bitter about that.  All of those examples have happened to me or my family.
//Only the slavish worship of the "market" allows these sorts of monstrous abuses to continue.
///Some things SHOULD be done as a community rather than as a business transaction.
 
2013-04-30 07:43:06 PM
I really don't get why the Chamber of Commerce and related business lobbies didn't come out in favor of a single-payer system or Medicare for all. You'd think they would prefer that over being forced to buy their employees healthcare.
 
2013-04-30 07:46:15 PM

thornhill: I really don't get why the Chamber of Commerce and related business lobbies didn't come out in favor of a single-payer system or Medicare for all. You'd think they would prefer that over being forced to buy their employees healthcare.


The decision-makers are all invested in insurance companies and big banks, though (or sit on their boards, or otherwise run them). Big business in this country is an incestuous club.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report