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.

(NBC News)   Profiles of uninsured who would rather pay the fine than join Obamacare. Yes, they are exactly as you expect   (nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, obamacare, health cares, hold outs, socialized medicine  
•       •       •

7965 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2013 at 5:13 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-05 05:45:05 PM  

DirkValentine: vpb: Hoban Washburne: I would hope that each of these assholes has a catastrophic health issue, but then they'd still get healthcare and just pass the costs on to the rest of us.

That raises an interesting question.

What happens when people get sick, don't have insurance and it isn't an open season?  I guess they get to be the example of why it's stupid to not have insurance?

It's duck season.


Goddamn right. We've been beating the absolute dog shiat out of woodies and blue wings this week.
 
2013-10-05 05:46:16 PM  
I think if people want to opt out of the mandate they should be allowed; however, the law needs to be changed which classifies those medical debts and related debts incurred because you opted out as non-bankruptable.  If you decide to freeload then you don't get a chance to wipe out the debt due to your bad decision.

We'll see how many people decide to opt out when they realize the true weight of their decision and that they can't squirm out of it later.
 
2013-10-05 05:47:20 PM  

Il Douchey: Well, who did you think was crashing the exchanges trying to get in?  The young healthy people looking to increase their contribution to the collective, or the already costly unhealthy people looking to have someone else pick up most of their tab?

/Does it really surprise you that the intended victims of this ponzi scheme aren't eager to be fleeced?


The already costly people you mentioned were already getting socialized care via Medicare, Medicaid and the VA.

But you already knew that...
 
2013-10-05 05:49:23 PM  
It would be immoral and unethical, but what I want is for these ppl, were they to get sick, have them just kicked to the curb. I'm sure jesus or someone will help them, he gave free health care too.
 
2013-10-05 05:53:40 PM  

vartian: swaniefrmreddeer: ER's are going to have to deny treatment to anybody without health insurance. Maybe this whole death panel thing isn't actually that bad of an idea, if you could have been insured and chose not to be, then you're on your own. The boot-strap crowd can get all boot-strappy with their own emergency medical care.

Hoban Washburne: I would hope that each of these assholes has a catastrophic health issue, but then they'd still get healthcare and just pass the costs on to the rest of us.

Coco LaFemme: Maybe the lesson to be learned here is not to breed like the human race is dying out when you can't properly take care of all your spawnlings.  The United States is not an agrarian society anymore, we don't need people having 10+ children to make sure there's enough manual labor for the farms.

A wish for denial of treatment, Invoking of untreated sickness and a call for child limitation. This is not a fun thread.


If they are red state morons who oppose things just because Obama is for them then yes they do deserve to suffer
 
2013-10-05 05:56:29 PM  

Warlordtrooper: vartian: swaniefrmreddeer: ER's are going to have to deny treatment to anybody without health insurance. Maybe this whole death panel thing isn't actually that bad of an idea, if you could have been insured and chose not to be, then you're on your own. The boot-strap crowd can get all boot-strappy with their own emergency medical care.

Hoban Washburne: I would hope that each of these assholes has a catastrophic health issue, but then they'd still get healthcare and just pass the costs on to the rest of us.

Coco LaFemme: Maybe the lesson to be learned here is not to breed like the human race is dying out when you can't properly take care of all your spawnlings.  The United States is not an agrarian society anymore, we don't need people having 10+ children to make sure there's enough manual labor for the farms.

A wish for denial of treatment, Invoking of untreated sickness and a call for child limitation. This is not a fun thread.

If they are red state morons who oppose things just because Obama is for them then yes they do deserve to suffer


Obama is almost a Christlike figure here.

He suffered in order to give you salvation to the masses. For those who accept his sacrifice, a lifetime of grace awaits. For those who don't, punishment and damnation awaits.

/St. Bob the healer.
 
2013-10-05 05:57:01 PM  
I'm the libbiest lib ever, but it makes no rational sense for me to accept ACA coverage. I work for a very small business that is exempted from pretty much all employment law in the first place, so there's no mandate to provide or subsidize coverage; and I make too much money to be given any federal subsidy for my premiums. For me to enroll in a bronze-level plan, I'm looking at monthly premiums that cost about 9.5% of my income to get 60% coverage. In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0 and coincidentally, I've been saving around 10% of my monthly income for the last eight or nine years. If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using (and if  I do, the plan I'd be getting would only cover 60% of expenses) when I could be using that money to save for a home or a car or something other than letting an insurance executive make a yacht payment.

I really want to hold out for single payer. The deal I'm getting is a huge shiat sandwich.
 
2013-10-05 05:59:29 PM  
"I calculated it out and it is cheaper for me for the next four years to pay the fine rather than get coverage," Collett said. "At some point where it would make financial sense to pay for insurance rather than pay fines, I will make the decision from a financial standpoint."

Yeah, Mark?  That 'point' is called when you unexpectedly get sick or injured.  Unless, of course, you're one of those republicans who manages to expectedly get sick.  Then you might have a point.  Oh, wait ...

Mark, a 51-year-old contractor in Colorado, recently worked through the pain of a broken rib because he lacks health insurance.

... you're not one of them, or else you would have been able to avoid breaking a rib.  Tell me Mark, how much did the ambulance ride and ER visit for that cost you?  Would it have been cheaper if you had been paying insurance premiums for a few years beforehand.  Or how about if that rib broke just a bit more and poked a lung?  What's your plan then?
 
2013-10-05 05:59:47 PM  

vudutek: I think the Dems should go ahead and give up the individual mandate, totally.
But.... with a caveat. A big one.
Anyone that opts out, needs to be totally out. No insurance at all. You want to be a boostrappy individualist, you pay 100% for all care. No exceptions. And just like student loans, no discharge through bankruptcy.

All right, Randians, time to put up or shut up.


My hope is that 5 years hence when some dipshiat show up in the ER without insurance he/she will be given the dirty looks and lectured.  He will get the minimum stabilizing treatment and billed out the wazoo.
 
2013-10-05 06:00:44 PM  

GhostFish: And this guy is a software developer?


He does the cows for Farmville.
 
2013-10-05 06:05:01 PM  

fusillade762: Ayup. This is the big thing everyone seems to miss. People are still going to get sick and you are still going to be stuck paying for it whether or not they have insurance.


Except that pre-Obamacare there was some sympathy for people who didn't have insurance.  Without knowing the details of someone's life I could assume that health insurance wasn't available or affordable for this person.  Post-Obamacare when someone waltzes into the ER without insurance people are going to want to know why.  I think there will be some social pressure on these deadbeats.
 
2013-10-05 06:05:28 PM  

likefunbutnot: If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using


And you know that ... how?
 
2013-10-05 06:06:33 PM  

red5ish: GhostFish: And this guy is a software developer?

He does the cows for Farmville.


That was way better than the joke I was going to make.
 
2013-10-05 06:08:35 PM  

FloydA: "I calculated it out and it is cheaper for me for the next four years to pay the fine rather than get coverage," Collett said.


I calculated that it's cheaper for me not to have car insurance, as long as I am not in an accident.  It's cheaper for me to not have homeowner's insurance, as long as nothing happens to damage my house.  It's cheaper for me to not have health insurance, as long as I don't get sick or injured.

However, I realize those things could happen, so I bought the insurance anyway, to protect me from unexpected tragedies.  That's what insurance is for.  If I do get sick or injured, the money I spent on insurance will be more than offset by the money I save getting my care paid for.

Why is that concept so hard for Republicans to grasp?


Because they lack insight and conscience.
 
2013-10-05 06:11:01 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: FloydA: vpb: Hoban Washburne: I would hope that each of these assholes has a catastrophic health issue, but then they'd still get healthcare and just pass the costs on to the rest of us.

That raises an interesting question.

What happens when people get sick, don't have insurance and it isn't an open season?  I guess they get to be the example of why it's stupid to not have insurance?

Sadly, no.  They just go to the ER and get treated, and then when they can't pay, the hospital has to swallow the cost, which they pass on to everyone else.

Seriously. This is apparently a concept that Republicans are mentally incapable of understanding. They scream "No Obamacare! No government using my taxes to pay for other people's health" as if our taxes aren't already being used to pay for other people's health via ER expenses. And this is one of the 2 biggest reasons why the US spends so much in health care and yet has worse quality than almost every other developed country. If we're already spending the money anyway, what is the problem of reforming the system to make it a little more efficient?


That would be soshulizum.
 
2013-10-05 06:11:47 PM  

likefunbutnot: I'm the libbiest lib ever, but it makes no rational sense for me to accept ACA coverage. I work for a very small business that is exempted from pretty much all employment law in the first place, so there's no mandate to provide or subsidize coverage; and I make too much money to be given any federal subsidy for my premiums. For me to enroll in a bronze-level plan, I'm looking at monthly premiums that cost about 9.5% of my income to get 60% coverage. In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0 and coincidentally, I've been saving around 10% of my monthly income for the last eight or nine years. If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using (and if  I do, the plan I'd be getting would only cover 60% of expenses) when I could be using that money to save for a home or a car or something other than letting an insurance executive make a yacht payment.

I really want to hold out for single payer. The deal I'm getting is a huge shiat sandwich.


No no.  It's excellent legislation -- which was not at all a handout to the health insurance industry -- that must be defended at all costs because we had to do SOMETHING~!
 
2013-10-05 06:11:53 PM  
i.imgur.com
howdemocracyworks.files.wordpress.com

I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.

I mean, I've seen the Fark threads that show up every now and then, with farkers begging for donations because their nearest and dearest are sick. And it's depressing to see. My mother survived breast cancer because, through general taxation, everyone in the UK has a basic safety net of the NHS.

She could have gone private, and paid for it, which would have cost big £££s. She may have got her treatment sooner, or in more comfortable conditions. But she didn't have to as healthcare is a basic foundation of society that everyone needs at some point.

And the ultimate irony is in those images I've posted. Americans spend the most on healthcare, with the smallest returns.

/I'm not suggesting that the NHS is perfect, by the way. There have been several major scandals recently, but it seems better than what's available to your average American.
 
2013-10-05 06:12:27 PM  

red5ish: GhostFish: And this guy is a software developer?

He does the cows for Farmville.


I had you Farkied simply as "smart" previous to that post.

I will now add "funny" to your Farkie.

Congratulations. You've earned it.

/Depressing article all in all.
//Coulda been sub-titled "Profles in Derpage".
///Third slashie goes where?
 
2013-10-05 06:12:32 PM  

pueblonative: 2wolves: Can we get Collett some birth control?

I don't even think Obamacare covers that.


But boner pills are still covered.
 
2013-10-05 06:13:27 PM  

iron de havilland: [i.imgur.com image 850x462]
[howdemocracyworks.files.wordpress.com image 675x349]

I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.

I mean, I've seen the Fark threads that show up every now and then, with farkers begging for donations because their nearest and dearest are sick. And it's depressing to see. My mother survived breast cancer because, through general taxation, everyone in the UK has a basic safety net of the NHS.

She could have gone private, and paid for it, which would have cost big £££s. She may have got her treatment sooner, or in more comfortable conditions. But she didn't have to as healthcare is a basic foundation of society that everyone needs at some point.

And the ultimate irony is in those images I've posted. Americans spend the most on healthcare, with the smallest returns.

/I'm not suggesting that the NHS is perfect, by the way. There have been several major scandals recently, but it seems better than what's available to your average American.


yup
 
2013-10-05 06:14:41 PM  

2wolves: pueblonative: 2wolves: Can we get Collett some birth control?

I don't even think Obamacare covers that.

But boner pills are still covered.


The catholic church doesn't seem to have a problem with old guys having non-reproductive sex.
 
2013-10-05 06:17:31 PM  
"Collett counts himself among the 29 percent of people who said in an NBCNews/Kaiser poll they are angry about the health reform law. "The issue for me is that it is not the proper role of government," he said.

Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance plan for people with low income and children who are not covered."


I really can't get over this
 
2013-10-05 06:18:48 PM  

whistleridge: A friend from high school who to date has been one of the derpiest derpers who ever derped, a total gun nut, and a giant racist sack of anti-Obama shiat just found out this week that he has MS.

Now I wouldn't wish MS on my worst enemy and I'm genuinely upset at the diagnosis, but I would be lying if I said I don't think the current existential crisis he's undergoing is more than a little instructive. I'll be curious to see what his views on ACA are 3 years hence.


I can tell you exactly what his views will be.

In private, he'll be happy and grateful that Obama changed things so that health insurance companies can't deny him coverage for pre-existing conditions, thereby making the cost of his treatments is merely extremely painful through copays and deductibles, rather than bankrupting and then totally unaffordable.

In public, he will never, ever, ever again mention or make note of how he is financing his treatment.  He will still rail against Obama and the rest of the socialists, but if ever someone asks him a question on Obamacare, he will find some way to either move the conversation to another subject, dodge the question, or simply shut up.

I know this because it is the behavior of one of my coworkers.  His son had just graduated college and was unable to find a job.  However, he still needed to pay for his insulin and some other drugs related to his diabetes - which in total, without insurance, would cost around $600 a month.  My coworker was complaining one day about how his son wasn't going to be able to afford those drugs and he (the father) would have to give him the money to pay out of pocket.  That's when I pointed out that one of the changes of Obamacare was that kids could stay on parents plans until they were 26 - or, in other words, the kid didn't need to find his own insurance for another 4 years.

My coworker was going to pay out-of-pocket for his son's medication simply because he didn't know the child was still covered under his own insurance.  Since then, he has never spoken up about Obamacare again, although he still does broadcast Glen Beck daily across the office.

I'm holding my next comment in reserve for if the son doesn't get insurance through work when he ages out of dad's plan - asking if pop's is glad that insurance companies have to sell him a policy even though he has a $7,200/year pre-existing condition.
 
2013-10-05 06:19:46 PM  

Karac: And you know that ... how?


14 out of the last 15 years, I've had zero medical expenses. I'm at low risk for developing chronic health issues over the next five years and the most likely way that I would be injured is in an automobile accident, in which case my car insurance would provide coverage.

I don't think it makes rational sense for me to pay slightly more than half what I pay to have a home each month for the right to 60% off coupon of expenses that I will either not use at all *or* will still be so vastly expensive that I will be bankrupted after care has been provided.
 
2013-10-05 06:20:29 PM  

super_grass: LazarusLong42: So the first guy has a ton of kids who are all on Medicaid.

If he were female and black, the Republicans would call him a welfare queen.

Damn those imaginary republicans!


Oh, if only they were imaginary.
 
2013-10-05 06:23:06 PM  

Daniels: likefunbutnot: I'm the libbiest lib ever, but it makes no rational sense for me to accept ACA coverage. I work for a very small business that is exempted from pretty much all employment law in the first place, so there's no mandate to provide or subsidize coverage; and I make too much money to be given any federal subsidy for my premiums. For me to enroll in a bronze-level plan, I'm looking at monthly premiums that cost about 9.5% of my income to get 60% coverage. In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0 and coincidentally, I've been saving around 10% of my monthly income for the last eight or nine years. If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using (and if  I do, the plan I'd be getting would only cover 60% of expenses) when I could be using that money to save for a home or a car or something other than letting an insurance executive make a yacht payment.

I really want to hold out for single payer. The deal I'm getting is a huge shiat sandwich.

No no.  It's excellent legislation -- which was not at all a handout to the health insurance industry -- that must be defended at all costs because we had to do SOMETHING~!


I think what dipshiat meant to say is: While you personally do not benefit from the new healthcare law, is the extra burden worth it for your less fortunate neighbors to have access to healthcare where they previously wouldn't?
 
2013-10-05 06:23:46 PM  

iron de havilland: I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.

I mean, I've seen the Fark threads that show up every now and then, with farkers begging for donations because their nearest and dearest are sick. And it's depressing to see. My mother survived breast cancer because, through general taxation, everyone in the UK has a basic safety net of the NHS.

She could have gone private, and paid for it, which would have cost big £££s. She may have got her treatment sooner, or in more comfortable conditions. But she didn't have to as healthcare is a basic foundation of society that everyone needs at some point.

And the ultimate irony is in those images I've posted. Americans spend the most on healthcare, with the smallest returns.

/I'm not suggesting that the NHS is perfect, by the way. There have been several major scandals recently, but it seems better than what's available to your average American.


Because if Jesus wanted poor people to have healthcare, he would have gone around healing them himself.
 
2013-10-05 06:25:57 PM  
Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance plan for people with low income and children who are not covered.

While growing up my father worked for the Forest Service.

I graduated from the University of Idaho in 1997 with a B.S. degree.

We home school our children and attend church in Marsing as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


His childhood security was made possible by the government. His college education was made possible by the government. His kids' health is made possible by the government. Based on Medicaid and family number, they are on food stamps. When I think of a young Republican tool, this is their snapshot.
 
2013-10-05 06:26:16 PM  
Not having health insurance in the U.S., where doctors and hospitals charge prices bordering on absurdity *just because they can*, is one of the dumbest things you can do.

"I'm healthy, I don't need it."

That's fine, until you get hit by a bus and need months of hospital care.
 
2013-10-05 06:27:23 PM  

likefunbutnot: I'm the libbiest lib ever, but it makes no rational sense for me to accept ACA coverage. I work for a very small business that is exempted from pretty much all employment law in the first place, so there's no mandate to provide or subsidize coverage; and I make too much money to be given any federal subsidy for my premiums. For me to enroll in a bronze-level plan, I'm looking at monthly premiums that cost about 9.5% of my income to get 60% coverage. In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0 and coincidentally, I've been saving around 10% of my monthly income for the last eight or nine years. If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using (and if  I do, the plan I'd be getting would only cover 60% of expenses) when I could be using that money to save for a home or a car or something other than letting an insurance executive make a yacht payment.

I really want to hold out for single payer. The deal I'm getting is a huge shiat sandwich.


The reason to get insurance is for the security.  It's quite possible for a single accident or illness to push you into seven figures of medical expenses, meaning one single adverse event could shoot your dreams of home ownership down the toilet forever.

Also note the 60% is an average across everyone on the plan - those who actually have a serious injury or illness will have a much higher percentage of their expenses paid by insurance, so if you do manage to rack up a million dollars in medical expenses, you're certainly not on the hook for 400k of it.

If you're fairly healthy, you actually want a lower actuarial value for your plan, because the decrease in premiums, for you, will be greater than the increase in out-of-pocket expenses.  You're assuming more of the risk for your health, but if you're overall quite healthy, that risk is lessened.  A gold or platinum plan makes a lot more sense for someone that is sicker - the increase in premiums wouldn't be worth it for a healthier person, but the decrease in cost-sharing makes sense if you're less healthy.
 
2013-10-05 06:28:57 PM  

likefunbutnot: I don't think it makes rational sense for me to pay slightly more than half what I pay to have a home each month for the right to 60% off coupon of expenses that I will either not use at all *or* will still be so vastly expensive that I will be bankrupted after care has been provided.


You are either a liar or living in Guatemala in which case, none of this applies.
 
2013-10-05 06:29:30 PM  

FloydA: "I calculated it out and it is cheaper for me for the next four years to pay the fine rather than get coverage," Collett said.


I calculated that it's cheaper for me not to have car insurance, as long as I am not in an accident.  It's cheaper for me to not have homeowner's insurance, as long as nothing happens to damage my house.  It's cheaper for me to not have health insurance, as long as I don't get sick or injured.

However, I realize those things could happen, so I bought the insurance anyway, to protect me from unexpected tragedies.  That's what insurance is for.  If I do get sick or injured, the money I spent on insurance will be more than offset by the money I save getting my care paid for.

Why is that concept so hard for Republicans to grasp?


I blame the meth.
 
2013-10-05 06:30:01 PM  

Karac: likefunbutnot: If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using

And you know that ... how?


Duh, because he didn't need it before.
 
2013-10-05 06:33:37 PM  

likefunbutnot: 14 out of the last 15 years, I've had zero medical expenses.


I know someone who went 15 years without seeing a doctor, meanwhile his bladder got so big it shut down his kidneys and he almost died.  Spent many days in the hospital, some in a coma, and might be on a catheter the rest of his life.  You may very well be hurting yourself by not getting preventative care.
 
2013-10-05 06:34:03 PM  
And two years from now they will be first in line to complain that they dont get services fast enough.
 
2013-10-05 06:35:06 PM  

red5ish: GhostFish: And this guy is a software developer?

He does the cows for Farmville.


There were 10 times where he did the wrong cow.
 
2013-10-05 06:36:00 PM  
organizmx: "Collett counts himself among the 29 percent of people who said in an NBCNews/Kaiser poll they are angry about the health reform law. "The issue for me is that it is not the proper role of government," he said.

Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance plan for people with low income and children who are not covered."


I really can't get over this

It's nothing new.

[keepgovernmenthandsoffmymedicaresigns.jpg]
 
2013-10-05 06:37:10 PM  

DigitalCoffee: red5ish: GhostFish: And this guy is a software developer?

He does the cows for Farmville.

There were 10 times where he did the wrong cow.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Oh this poor sap!
 
2013-10-05 06:37:21 PM  

pueblonative: "I don't think that the government should be involved in health care or health insurance," says Greg Collett, a 41-year-old software developer in Caldwell, Idaho, who would rather pay the fine for now -- $95 the first year -- than signup.

unless this guy's making $9500/year writing software (maybe school assignments on vDesk or something) sounds like he's in for a rude surprise.




He's correct, the fine for the first year is $95.
 
2013-10-05 06:38:02 PM  
When your income is barely enough to survive on, and every dollar counts, it's understandable that paying $100 a year in fines sounds like a better option than paying $100 a month for subsidized health coverage.
 
2013-10-05 06:41:15 PM  

likefunbutnot: I don't think it makes rational sense for me to pay slightly more than half what I pay to have a home each month for the right to 60% off coupon of expenses that I will either not use at all *or* will still be so vastly expensive that I will be bankrupted after care has been provided.


60% insurance doesn't mean you pay 40% across the board.  You pay considerably more than 40% of the cheaper, common expenses (you're probably paying about 66-80% of the cost of an office visit as part of the copay) but in exchange, you pay a lot less than 40% of a major cost (for example, for a severe heart attack, insurance would probably end up paying around 97% of the cost).  The risk of going bankrupt can be greatly reduced (and would more likely come from a loss of income rather than a large amount of expense).
 
2013-10-05 06:42:54 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Daniels: likefunbutnot: I'm the libbiest lib ever, but it makes no rational sense for me to accept ACA coverage. I work for a very small business that is exempted from pretty much all employment law in the first place, so there's no mandate to provide or subsidize coverage; and I make too much money to be given any federal subsidy for my premiums. For me to enroll in a bronze-level plan, I'm looking at monthly premiums that cost about 9.5% of my income to get 60% coverage. In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0 and coincidentally, I've been saving around 10% of my monthly income for the last eight or nine years. If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using (and if  I do, the plan I'd be getting would only cover 60% of expenses) when I could be using that money to save for a home or a car or something other than letting an insurance executive make a yacht payment.

I really want to hold out for single payer. The deal I'm getting is a huge shiat sandwich.

No no.  It's excellent legislation -- which was not at all a handout to the health insurance industry -- that must be defended at all costs because we had to do SOMETHING~!

I think what dipshiat meant to say is: While you personally do not benefit from the new healthcare law, is the extra burden worth it for your less fortunate neighbors to have access to healthcare where they previously wouldn't?


No.  I meant exactly what I said.  I'm pro single-payer.  It was garbage when it was passed and it's garbage now.  Only now dipshiats are pretending it's not garbage when it pushed back what we actually need to do 30-50 more years.
 
2013-10-05 06:44:14 PM  

organizmx: iron de havilland: I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.

I mean, I've seen the Fark threads that show up every now and then, with farkers begging for donations because their nearest and dearest are sick. And it's depressing to see. My mother survived breast cancer because, through general taxation, everyone in the UK has a basic safety net of the NHS.

She could have gone private, and paid for it, which would have cost big £££s. She may have got her treatment sooner, or in more comfortable conditions. But she didn't have to as healthcare is a basic foundation of society that everyone needs at some point.

And the ultimate irony is in those images I've posted. Americans spend the most on healthcare, with the smallest returns.

/I'm not suggesting that the NHS is perfect, by the way. There have been several major scandals recently, but it seems better than what's available to your average American.

Because if Jesus wanted poor people to have healthcare, he would have gone around healing them himself.


+1, would LOL again
 
2013-10-05 06:44:40 PM  

poot_rootbeer: When your income is barely enough to survive on, and every dollar counts, it's understandable that paying $100 a year in fines sounds like a better option than paying $100 a month for subsidized health coverage.


It does sound better until you actually get sick, go to the ER and are instantly saddled with more than your entire year's worth of premiums in one shot.
 
2013-10-05 06:45:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Il Douchey: Well, who did you think was crashing the exchanges trying to get in?  The young healthy people looking to increase their contribution to the collective, or the already costly unhealthy people looking to have someone else pick up most of their tab?

/Does it really surprise you that the intended victims of this ponzi scheme aren't eager to be fleeced?

That's what you got out of this?


For the perpetually persecuted, there are always victims.
 
2013-10-05 06:45:33 PM  
"I don't think that the government should be involved in health care or health insurance," says Greg Collett, a 41-year-old software developer in Caldwell, Idaho, who would rather pay the fine for now -- $95 the first year -- than signup.

Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance plan for people with low income and children who are not covered.

So die in a fire you sack of shiat.
 
2013-10-05 06:46:05 PM  
I'm paying for my own health care at the moment. A few days ago I received notice that my plan is not up to snuff and is going to die at the end of the year so I have to bump up to a different plan. Whee.

/Young Adult Blue Max
//soon to be Bronze plan something or other
 
2013-10-05 06:47:06 PM  

poot_rootbeer: When your income is barely enough to survive on, and every dollar counts, it's understandable that paying $100 a year in fines sounds like a better option than paying $100 a month for subsidized health coverage.


Not when you factor in the value you gain by the insurance.  That's like saying the cost of owning a house is a lot more than the cost of living in a cardboard box under the bridge.  While that's true, you're getting something for that cost.

When I was uninsured, I had a very frightening episode.  I've told this one before, but I was crumpled in a ball on the floor from severe abdominal pain at about 2 in the morning.  I was weighing in my head whether or not to go to a hospital.  I knew I would be bankrupted from the cost of the ambulance and the emergency department, but on the other hand, if this was appendicitis and my appendix burst, it would probably have killed me.

Laying on the floor in agony weighing certain financial ruin versus potential death was among the worst experiences of my life.  If I could possibly have been insured for only $100 a month I would have jumped on that so fast it would make your head spin.
 
2013-10-05 06:47:22 PM  

gaspode: "I don't think that the government should be involved in health care or health insurance," says Greg Collett, a 41-year-old software developer in Caldwell, Idaho, who would rather pay the fine for now -- $95 the first year -- than signup.

Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance plan for people with low income and children who are not covered.

So die in a fire you sack of shiat.


Can't get laid?
 
2013-10-05 06:48:51 PM  

Dallymo: ginandbacon: "Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance plan for people with low income and children who are not covered."

*sigh*

*blink*
*blink*

*blink*

I...


He's the one who says that he doesn't think government has a role in healthcare. Yes, the guy with 10 kids on Medicaid.
 
Displayed 50 of 266 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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