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  
•       •       •

7969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2013 at 5:13 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-10-05 05:32:42 PM  
20 votes:
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.
2013-10-05 02:44:45 PM  
15 votes:
"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?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 01:08:21 PM  
12 votes:
"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."

Yes, being a freeloader is usualy cheaper.  Getting all the benefits of living in a developed country while not paying taxes would probably save you some cash too.
2013-10-05 01:57:24 PM  
11 votes:
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.
2013-10-05 05:10:06 PM  
9 votes:

vartian: 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.


You make it sound like I'm advocating for eugenics or something.  I'm not.  I'm advocating for common sense.  If you're poor and can barely afford to care for yourself, it makes absolutely no sense to have that many children.  If you've got so many kids that you can't afford to insure them and you have to put everyone on Medicaid, that's a problem.

Condoms are cheaper than health insurance.  Wrap that shiat up.
2013-10-05 04:47:54 PM  
9 votes:

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*


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.
2013-10-05 06:11:53 PM  
8 votes:
i.imgur.comView Full Size

howdemocracyworks.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


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 05:31:18 PM  
7 votes:

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?
2013-10-05 05:18:26 PM  
7 votes:

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.


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.
2013-10-05 02:09:30 PM  
7 votes:
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.
2013-10-05 06:47:06 PM  
6 votes:

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 06:25:57 PM  
6 votes:
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 12:56:22 PM  
6 votes:
"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*
2013-10-05 06:18:48 PM  
5 votes:

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 06:08:35 PM  
5 votes:

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 05:44:18 PM  
5 votes:

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.


One fatal flaw in your plan: the only people who would actually refuse emergency care to randian assholes would be other randian assholes.
2013-10-05 05:13:35 PM  
5 votes:

BumpInTheNight: Honest question:  I thought you guys were going to get free universal healthcare like the rest of us do, what's this you gotta pay out of pocket business?  Why not just do the right thing and extract it via taxation like anything else?  Then these idiots who are so bad at life just flat out can't avoid what's best for them.


That would be an ideal solution.  Unfortunately a large portion of the US population still views socialized programs as bad, despite how effective they are everywhere else they've been implemented, or how effective they've been here in terms of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Public Education.
2013-10-05 01:13:18 PM  
5 votes:
So a guy who home schools his 10 kids in rural Idaho because he distrusts the government, a guy that believes both health insurance and single payer are evil, and a hypocrite.

The third guy is really a gem:

FTA:
Mark, a 51-year-old contractor in Colorado, recently worked through the pain of a broken rib because he lacks health insurance. He'll be signing up, even though his truck carries a bumper sticker that spells out Obama's name as "One big-ass mistake, America".
2013-10-05 11:12:25 PM  
4 votes:
To those people outside the U.S. who don't understand why the world's richest, most powerful country lacks a universal healthcare system:

I'm sure you've heard people talk about American exceptionalism. That's the belief by some Americans that the United States is the culmination of historical trend toward freedom, democracy, and economic perfection. We are special, a singular monument to the aspirations of all people, everywhere. And, since we have no real health care "system", then no health care system must be the best health care system there is. If we instead adopt something like the ACA, we'll start sliding downward into socialism and fascism and all the other isms that afflict the rest of the entire world--we'll stop being special. So really what this comes down to is, a small but extremely powerful and vocal minority of people in the United States think that if we adopt a system that provides everyone with access to health care, then we'll be like every other country in the world. And they can't live with the thought. So they're willing to destroy the country to keep that from happening.

Yes, it's completely delusional. But don't act like you've never had batshiat insane leaders before.
2013-10-05 10:30:39 PM  
4 votes:

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


It's easy. Look at it thsi way: First, imagine someone who has a comfortable or better standard of living, and is a selfish asshole who doesn't give a fark how bad others have it, as long as he and his are OK. Then imagine the kind of person who repeats such sayings as "gubmint bad" and "gubmint can't do anything right" and "I should be free to do whatever the hell I please on my land" In other words, someone just like the first asshole, but poor. Finally, imagine the type of person who is such a peice of shiat that he thinks things like "Well, I ain't got it so great, but I'll be damned if them wetbacks and darkies are going to get a dime of my tax money"

Now multiply those 3 people by about 25 million, and you've got the stupidest, stubbornest, most selfish group of the American public who won't give a goddamned dime to anyone they don;t like. And believe me, there's a LOT of people they don't like. Add to this the fact that the majority of them will GLADLY cut off their nose to spite their face, and you'll see why the "greatest country in the world" spends more money per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world for worse healthcare

tl;dr: It's because there are a lot of stupid, short-sighted, selfish assholes in the US who put the teabaggers into national political offices.
2013-10-05 05:46:16 PM  
4 votes:
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 05:33:34 PM  
4 votes:
You guys are glossing over the best part.  The dude that has all 10 kids covered by Medicaid also believes:

FTA: "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

*facepalm*
2013-10-05 04:48:43 PM  
4 votes:
If'n he's fer it, I'm agin it
2013-10-05 04:45:34 PM  
4 votes:

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?
2013-10-05 03:32:34 PM  
4 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 02:58:39 PM  
4 votes:

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?
2013-10-05 07:07:23 PM  
3 votes:

gregcollettforidaho.comView Full Size

Greg Collett, running for State Rep in Idaho.



That's right, programmer who can't afford all his kids wants to decide on the fate of yours.
2013-10-05 06:49:05 PM  
3 votes:

HempHead: 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.


His logic (like yours) is faulty.

The penalty for 2014 is $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is greater. So unless he makes $9,500 a year, he's going to be paying more than $95.
2013-10-05 06:33:37 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:23:06 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:59:29 PM  
3 votes:
"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 05:25:42 PM  
3 votes:
Can we get Collett some birth control?
2013-10-05 05:09:45 PM  
3 votes:
vartian:

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

I was trying to be absurd, but the people against healthcare reform are the ones who will end up costing everybody when they show up in the ER. Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US and you can't get blood from a stone.
2013-10-05 04:43:59 PM  
3 votes:

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.


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.
2013-10-06 07:08:57 AM  
2 votes:

R.A.Danny: 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.

The ACA doesn't get us any closer to other countries than we are right now.


Before Obamacare: I couldn't afford private health insurance.
After Obamacare: I can.

Before Obamacare: With a lot of pre-existing conditions, you couldn't get health insurance, whether you could pay or not.
After Obamacare: You can.

Yes, I agree with you on one thing - we should go to single-payer like every other developed country.  But to say that the health care system in no better today than it was five years ago?  That's just being whiny.

It's like don't ask/don't tell.  Sure, it was a bad policy which forced gays who wanted to serve in the military to remain in the closet.  Sure, getting rid of the discrimination completely is what we should have done in the 90's instead of waiting another 15 years.  BUT - since the policy before Clinton was that gays couldn't serve AT ALL, and that investigators could bust through that closet door and search them out - then you have to admit that the situation, while still shiatty, stunk a lot less than it did before.

A perfect plan is better than a good plan.  But sometimes you just don't have the votes and support from the other guys to enact that perfect plan.  And a good plan today is better than a perfect plan ... at some unspecified time in the future that may or may not ever occur.
2013-10-06 12:34:34 AM  
2 votes:

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: there are laws that guarantees treatment

All the ER is obliged to do is stabilize you if you have a life-threatening condition.  If this surprises you then you're an idiot.

What's your point?


I'll give you an example of the problem with the guaranteed treatment theory.  Schizophrenia usually surfaces in late teens early 20's.  You get psychotic and are hospitalized for a month because you are guaranteed treatment at the ER.  However, all your psych meds that can cost over $600/month for generics will not be guaranteed.

So what happens then?

You get psychotic once your meds run out and end up back in the ER then the psych ward for another month, ad nauseum.  Or, if you get real unlucky you kill a bunch of people like we've been seeing with a lot of the mass shootings.

Your treatment is assured, follow up not so much.
2013-10-05 10:05:15 PM  
2 votes:

MrSplifferton: 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?

I feel the same way, I've never been in an accident or had a ticket for almost 18 years.  So why should I have to pay for car insurance?  I'm just getting fleeced, having to pay for bad drivers making mistakes.

/What do you mean that's how insurance pools work?


I totally agree. I've not used my auto insurance in nearly 20 years. Ergo, by the same logic that says healthy people don't need health insurance, I do not need auto insurance. My home has never been robbed or damaged in an earthquake; why should I bother having homeowner's insurance? My brother-in-law is not a shady contractor, why does he need liability insurance? My boss is not a crooked lawyer, why must he carry malpractice insurance?

Why can't anyone just not have insurance until they actually need it? Obviously it's just a scheme by insurers and the government to fleece money from honest law-abiding citizens to support bad drivers, crooked lawyers and gypsy contractors!
2013-10-05 09:35:08 PM  
2 votes:

Selena Luna: Don't forget Fort Collins, Vail, Aspen and Telluride. Fort Collins is a college town and the others are resort towns. I don't know why the resort towns go blue, but they do.


They have contact with the outside world.

Republican politicians and media sources try to convince their victims that anyone from the northeast or the west coast are just limousine liberals out to steal all their money and give it to lazy, drugged-out, freeloading black welfare queens.

This is much harder to do if the their targets have been inoculated by actually met an someone from either coast or a person with a skin tone darker than lite mayonnaise.
2013-10-05 08:15:50 PM  
2 votes:

vrax: 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.


What the Fark Independents fail to realize is an ER will stabilize you and provide emergency treatment. The additional maintenance treatment can and will be denied if you are without insurance or ability to pay. Granted without the maintenance treatment  you will be back at some point but you will be much sicker than if you had the maintenance treatments you might need. This is especially true with things like diabetes and many heart issues. Also, the fact that they have to treat you in the ER does not mean that they don't charge you and will happily force you into bankruptcy for the cost of the treatment.
2013-10-05 08:13:52 PM  
2 votes:
Mark, a 51-year-old contractor in Colorado, recently worked through the pain of a broken rib because he lacks health insurance. He'll be signing up, even though his truck carries a bumper sticker that spells out Obama's name as "One big-ass mistake, America".

"Obamacare, here we come," said Mark, who also declined to give his full name.


We don't need his full name. I hope he gets the insurance, heals properly and has the courage and mental fortitude to scrape that bumper sticker off his truck.
2013-10-05 07:43:09 PM  
2 votes:
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.

Dude is a parasite plain and simple.
2013-10-05 07:34:21 PM  
2 votes:

firefly212: 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.

Every farking thread... every farking one...

THE ER DOES NOT TREAT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARENT EMERGENCIES!


(Hoping you are joking, but...) LOL!  Tell that to the ER!  I've sat in the ER for hours with people who are there with just about every minor thing your could name.  Our local major ER splits people off into what is essentially an urgent care subgroup for your typical uninsured cold, flu, and boo-boo people, but the intake is exactly the same.  Their load would probably be cut in half if these people had access to your typical primary care physician.
2013-10-05 07:32:17 PM  
2 votes:

firefly212: Every farking thread... every farking one...

THE ER DOES NOT TREAT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARENT EMERGENCIES!


Why do you post this when you can easily find that it is false? The ER treats everyone who comes in the door with a problem. More than half of all ER visits are for non-urgent care.

And there is obvious abuse. The Integrated Care Collaboration in Central Texas determined that nine patients accounted for about 2,700 emergency room visits there.
2013-10-05 07:20:26 PM  
2 votes:

BumpInTheNight: [www.gregcollettforidaho.com image 157x220]Greg Collett, running for State Rep in Idaho.


That's right, programmer who can't afford all his kids wants to decide on the fate of yours.


Now, to be fair to him, it doesn't appear that he's still running.  He seems to have lost the primary.
But, just to poke fun at this guy with 10 kids on medicaid (a federal/state program), here's one of his quotes from the site
Idaho should not support the food stamp program nor any other welfare program.  It is time to stop the forced redistribution of wealth.  Adding arbitrary requirements to qualify for programs that should not even exist in the first place does not do anything to solve the real problem.
2013-10-05 07:19:29 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Every farking thread... every farking one...

THE ER DOES NOT TREAT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARENT EMERGENCIES!
2013-10-05 07:19:10 PM  
2 votes:

HOOBOY!: As a husband, father, independent contractor, hobby farmer


As a hobby farmer in Idaho, he pays less real estate tax than his neighbors. How much less? Probably 99% less.

Link

Republicans, here is your poster child.
2013-10-05 06:59:33 PM  
2 votes:

The Dynamite Monkey: gaspode: Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid

I don't wish DIAF on anyone as a rule, but here is what he feels is not worth insuring:

[www.gregcollettforidaho.com image 200x245]


Wow, scanning over the rest of this douchebag's site and then keeping that whole 'too poor for ten kids but had them any ways and getting gov hand outs left, right & center to cover for that' would spin his campaign right into the ground.

Anyone living in Idaho should be wary of this asshole.
2013-10-05 06:53:32 PM  
2 votes:

gaspode: Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid


I don't wish DIAF on anyone as a rule, but here is what he feels is not worth insuring:

gregcollettforidaho.comView Full Size
2013-10-05 06:44:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:41:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:34:03 PM  
2 votes:
And two years from now they will be first in line to complain that they dont get services fast enough.
2013-10-05 06:30:01 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:27:23 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:23:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:20:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:12:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:11:01 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:05:01 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:59:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:38:02 PM  
2 votes:

Il Douchey: cc1984:That's what you got out of this?

Yup.  The article is hardly representative of the population.  You could cite three or four anecdotes among millions of Americans to suggest whatever you like.  Mine was more of a general questioning of the viability of Obamamcare.


You sounded so concerned.
2013-10-05 05:28:33 PM  
2 votes:

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*


If he has that many kids, he would probably be eligible for Medicaid himself. I just looked up eligibility requirements for Medicaid in Idaho. For a household with 12 residents (himself, his wife and 10 kids), the most he can make is $8,590 a month ($103,080 a year). One of the ways an adult in Idaho to get Medicaid is if they have a child under the age of 19. As his kids are on Medicaid and he most likely has a kid under age 19, he would qualify as well.
2013-10-05 05:27:03 PM  
2 votes:

Coco LaFemme: vartian: 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.

You make it sound like I'm advocating for eugenics or something.  I'm not.  I'm advocating for common sense.  If you're poor and can barely afford to care for yourself, it makes absolutely no sense to have that many children.  If you've got so many kids that you can't afford to insure them and you have to put everyone on Medicaid, that's a problem.

Condoms are cheaper than health insurance.  Wrap that shiat up.


B-bu-but condoms make Baby Jesus cry!!!

/given that it's Idaho, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason that guy isn't using birth control
2013-10-05 05:25:00 PM  
2 votes:
"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.
2013-10-05 05:10:14 PM  
2 votes:
Honest question:  I thought you guys were going to get free universal healthcare like the rest of us do, what's this you gotta pay out of pocket business?  Why not just do the right thing and extract it via taxation like anything else?  Then these idiots who are so bad at life just flat out can't avoid what's best for them.
2013-10-06 03:14:49 AM  
1 vote:

Delay: firefly212: Every farking thread... every farking one...

THE ER DOES NOT TREAT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARENT EMERGENCIES!

Why do you post this when you can easily find that it is false? The ER treats everyone who comes in the door with a problem. More than half of all ER visits are for non-urgent care.

And there is obvious abuse. The Integrated Care Collaboration in Central Texas determined that nine patients accounted for about 2,700 emergency room visits there.


I'm not certain which of you is right. My anecdotal evidence is an incident that happened a number of years ago. I had an accident in which I had severe damage to my left ulna, I'd shattered about an inch of bone. 

I went to the ER. It was a Thursday. I did receive treatment but, that treatment consisted of a some pain pills, a soft cast, a prescription for more pain pills, and a referral to an orthopedic surgeon that I should call the next Monday to set up an intake appointment sometime later that week. I was then sent home.

I went to the ER with a broken bone (I was also in shock but I came out of that while I was waiting for the doc to check me out). The kind folks at the ER checked me out, made a diagnoses, stabilized me, and then sent me on my way with instructions telling me what I should do next. This was when I had insurance.

My point is that, while you will be treated in the ER, it will be just enough to stabilize you. Once they reach the point that you no longer need emergency or urgent care, they will send you home and tell you to contact a non emergency doctor. Without insurance that's not really an option, so you just go home. When your health problem flares up again you have no other option than to go to the ER and start the whole process again.
2013-10-06 01:27:12 AM  
1 vote:

likefunbutnot: 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.


Let me tell you a story. I'm a bit of an exercise nut, I ride around 15km a day on my bike to and from work, etc. When I was 29 I suddenly developed an  inability to climb stairs, or walk fast without being left gasping like I'd run a marathon. Ended up in emergency and found out I'd had a "multiple, massive bilateral pulmonary embolism." Basically, out of the blue as far as I knew, my body decided to end me by clogging up my lungs with blood clots. The doctors kept saying shiat like "How does a healthy 29 year old throw a clot like this?" and "are you sure you don't smoke?  Have you ever smoked? Travelled anywhere?" I survived, only to lose the lower part of my right lung a year later to the same shiat. During the intervening time I had to spend a couple months taking an injectable anti-coagulant that cost 1400 bucks a month. Turns out I have a genetic clotting disorder and I'm going to have to take blood thinners for the rest of my life. Luckily for me I'm Canadian so I didn't have to pay out of pocket for the endless CTs, MRI, and all the other alphabet soup tests. I would've had to pay for the prescriptions if I did not have supplementary insurance so the 1400$ a month drug cost me 2$.

Point is I could've saved like 20$ a month by not getting that supplementary insurance, and then I would've been broke. If you're an American then you'd have it worse because you have no public healthcare. Being stuck in the hospital for a couple weeks could easily get very expensive. The whole point of insurance is to try to mitigate unforeseen disasters. Saying "Well I've never gotten sick before..." is kind of irrelevant, I could've said the same thing at my 29th birthday, but a couple months later I would likely have said "fark, I can't slow my breathing long enough to sleep, or eat"

/actually doing a lot better now
//hard motherfarker
2013-10-06 12:45:39 AM  
1 vote:

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: there are laws that guarantees treatment

All the ER is obliged to do is stabilize you if you have a life-threatening condition.  If this surprises you then you're an idiot.

What's your point?


I'm sure those with chronic medical conditions might have an issue with what you consider adequate "guaranteed treatment".
2013-10-06 12:06:56 AM  
1 vote:

Pincy: Gyrfalcon: Why can't anyone just not have insurance until they actually need it?

I know your not being serious here but this is actually what a lot of people think.


And the flip side, seen just as often is: People SHOULD HAVE bought insurance before they needed it! If they don't have insurance, why should they expect treatment they can't afford?

It's like people never listen to the crap that comes out of their mouths.
2013-10-05 11:24:38 PM  
1 vote:

cepson: To those people outside the U.S. who don't understand why the world's richest, most powerful country lacks a universal healthcare system:

I'm sure you've heard people talk about American exceptionalism. That's the belief by some Americans that the United States is the culmination of historical trend toward freedom, democracy, and economic perfection. We are special, a singular monument to the aspirations of all people, everywhere. And, since we have no real health care "system", then no health care system must be the best health care system there is. If we instead adopt something like the ACA, we'll start sliding downward into socialism and fascism and all the other isms that afflict the rest of the entire world--we'll stop being special. So really what this comes down to is, a small but extremely powerful and vocal minority of people in the United States think that if we adopt a system that provides everyone with access to health care, then we'll be like every other country in the world. And they can't live with the thought. So they're willing to destroy the country to keep that from happening.

Yes, it's completely delusional. But don't act like you've never had batshiat insane leaders before.


Neat post. Kinda helps explain the whole "refusal to switch to the metric system" thingy too.
2013-10-05 11:18:12 PM  
1 vote:
I'm sure someone has said it already, but....

Having 10 kids and not having health insurance is child abuse. They should be taken from that home.

Medicaid....Jesus farking Christ you farking piece of shiat.
2013-10-05 11:05:59 PM  
1 vote:
A true solution is a change to the Hippocratic oath: help only those with insurance or who can pay cash, everyone else is a leach and should be allowed to die in the gutter.  I guarantee that the "Obama haters" would be weeded out of the gene pool in 10 years.

Besides, what "software developer" in his 40's doesn't already have access to better insurance than Obamacare.  If you don't, you suck as a software developer or are a cheap bastard and deserve what you get.

Additionally, if you have any number of kids and are employable, you should be able to pay for them 100%; otherwise, don't have kids - ya freaking hypocritical leaches.  Separatist 'tards in Idaho do not add any value at all to the US or the world.
2013-10-05 10:53:35 PM  
1 vote:

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?


no long term strategy.
this seems to be a consistent theme with republicans.  Even the business minded ones don't usually think past the next quarter/cycle, etc..
2013-10-05 10:06:59 PM  
1 vote:
Conservative thinking will destroy this country once and for all...

Farking idiots the whole lot.
2013-10-05 10:01:11 PM  
1 vote:

pueblonative: HammerHeadSnark: Absolutely nothing in the article even suggested he couldn't afford insurance for the kids. The state of Idaho automatically enrolls foster kids in Medicaid . . . the health (and insurance) of foster kids is the responsibility of the state. While the guy may be providing a home for the kids, they are still wards of, and the responsibility of, the state. When the guy and his wife get a kid the kid arrives with a plastic garbage bag with all his worldly possessions, a file folder detailing school grades and accomplishments, and a Medicaid policy number . . . because, you see, the kids are not this guy's kids. They are the state's kids and the state has certain responsibilities, one of which is providing health care. Their dental care is also state paid. Clothing, too. Depending on the state -- and the child's age -- an allowance for spending money might also be available.

Other than the fact that he said that he'd rather pay the fine.  Okay, the state puts them on Medicaid regardless of the families ability to provide insurance.I get that.  But if he could afford it, wouldn't he have said something about that.he's providing insurance other than what the state is.  And if they cut that from the interview I'd expect him to put out his side of the story and scream about NBC being liars.  And from what I've seen, most policies include the parent paying as well as the kids.


This is from 2007:  Pick a state

I'm gonna come right out and say it. Many of the families that enroll as foster parents do so for a variety of reasons, but two stand out: the wife wants children (but can't bear) or they see a financial benefit to providing foster care. The more children, the more they receive. I don' know this family's motivations, but outside of what he earns as a programmer they're prob'ly bringing in another $4000-$5000 per month. If their motivation is solely financial (unlikely), do you think they'd spend a single dime of their own money on some damn foster kid?

My state offers everything I mentioned: food, play clothes, medical, dental, school clothes, and even money for discretionary spending by the child. (Oh, school trips and even day camp during the summer months.)

Now it's time for my dinner . . . I bought it; I'm eatin' it.
2013-10-05 09:58:50 PM  
1 vote:

Ablejack: firefly212: THE ER DOES NOT TREAT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARENT EMERGENCIES!

That is one of the goals of Obamacare. With insurance people are more likely to see their own physician rather than use emergency services for non-urgent issues. Is this what you mean, that the ER is meant for emergencies?


It's what I find funny about the 'just go to the ER' mentality.  Sure, they will treat your heart attack, maybe even give you some pills that will last a few weeks.  But what about afterwards, follow up care?  You will be charged an arm and a leg on follow up appointments and medicine and nobody will give that to you unless you have insurance, or cash up front.
2013-10-05 09:46:00 PM  
1 vote:
Surprisingly troll-free in this thread.
2013-10-05 09:17:33 PM  
1 vote:

TheAnalogKid: And he also gets to fill their heads with bullshiat and screw them up permanently, and your entry into Heaven is guaranteed if you sign up at least 10 people


In my work I deal with a lot of Mormon folks in Utah. I don't agree with their religion, and they never try to convert me (that may say more about me than them). They invite me to dinner at their houses and we often talk politics intelligently.

I don't agree that Mormon religious beliefs are any more bullshiat than some other religion.
2013-10-05 08:55:22 PM  
1 vote:
Delay: 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.

The family is probably also receiving Church Welfare too. Mormons take care of their own if they request it.
2013-10-05 08:50:23 PM  
1 vote:

Wadded Beef: Mark, a 51-year-old contractor in Colorado, recently worked through the pain of a broken rib because he lacks health insurance. He'll be signing up, even though his truck carries a bumper sticker that spells out Obama's name as "One big-ass mistake, America".

"Obamacare, here we come," said Mark, who also declined to give his full name.

We don't need his full name. I hope he gets the insurance, heals properly and has the courage and mental fortitude to scrape that bumper sticker off his truck.


My girlfriend's family lives in the Denver suburbs and unfortunately, she knows plenty of people who are pretty much exactly like the guy in the article.

/and yes, they have the same bumper stickers too
2013-10-05 08:34:35 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: Why is health care so expensive that every single person needs insurance to pay for it?
Why does any US citizen need insurance?


Good question. Base health care costs in the US are mostly set by the government. Here is 2012:

The formula for calculating 2012 physician fee schedule payment amount is as follows:
2012 Non-Facility Pricing Amount =
[(Work RVU * Work GPCI) +
(Transitioned Non-Facility PE RVU * PE GPCI) +
(MP RVU * MP GPCI)] * Conversion Factor (CF)
2012 Facility Pricing Amount =
[(Work RVU * Work GPCI) +
(Transitioned Facility PE RVU * PE GPCI) +
(MP RVU * MP GPCI)] * CF
The conversion factor for CY 2012 is $34.0376.

All clear?
2013-10-05 08:22:39 PM  
1 vote:
Why is health care so expensive that every single person needs insurance to pay for it?
Why does any US citizen need insurance?
2013-10-05 08:17:05 PM  
1 vote:

HammerHeadSnark: No, I'm saying they are *not* his kids . . . they are wards of the state and the state pays their insurance *and* an allowance for their clothes and all kinds of stuff. All the guy and his wife did was remove some kids from an orphanage and provide them a home.



While technically you are correct, if it is anything like the "home" around the corner with 8 foster kids they are raised like cattle because "the more the merrier*"

*"merrier" being a word from a long forgotten language that means "greater the government pays us".
2013-10-05 08:13:01 PM  
1 vote:
So he took in eight other kids without the means to insure them and let the state pick that tab up, rather than free them from the tyranny of gubmn't healthcare?  Is that what you're saying?

No, I'm saying they are *not* his kids . . . they are wards of the state and the state pays their insurance *and* an allowance for their clothes and all kinds of stuff. All the guy and his wife did was remove some kids from an orphanage and provide them a home.

Of course, the guy and his wife prob'ly get eight or nine hunnert bucks per kid per month . . . but hey, he's raisin' somebody else's kids. That oughta be worth somethin'. Right?

I'm not a Republican and my first thoughts were pretty much in line with everyone else's re: him being some anti-gubmint maroon. I guess in my heart I have a small amount of respect for the guy that willfully picks up another man's burden.

Now you guys stop being mad at me . . . I'm in Costa Rica recovering from (self-paid) oral surgery.
2013-10-05 08:12:07 PM  
1 vote:

HOOBOY!: HammerHeadSnark: The Dynamite Monkey: gaspode: Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid

I don't wish DIAF on anyone as a rule, but here is what he feels is not worth insuring:

[www.gregcollettforidaho.com image 200x245]

Okay, you're just being ingenuous . . . obviously you've been to his site (ya got the picture). Did you miss the part about them being adoptive foster kids? Of course they're on Medicaid . . . they are wards of the state.

I've ignored most of the moronic statements others made because it was likely the commenters were unaware of the nature of the relationship between Greg and the kids, but you went to his site and know he didn't sire them.

He may have sired one or two (I think I see an infant), but he didn't sire ten of them.

What does this change?


His adopted/foster kids are covered by Medicaid because it's a condition their placement, but he doesn't think they should be. While he's still a gigantic dumbass (who has run for public office in Idaho twice and gotten trounced both times...think about that, he's too crazy to govern in Idaho!), he's not a hypocrite since if he had his way he'd leave his own kids uninsured too. So he's got that going for him, I guess.
2013-10-05 08:02:04 PM  
1 vote:

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.


The bills will follow them and if they owe enough they might be forced into bankruptcy, I have seen it happen, so at least we get some schadenfreude.
2013-10-05 07:59:45 PM  
1 vote:

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?


You didn't read the article, did you?
2013-10-05 07:47:25 PM  
1 vote:
FTA: "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."


Also FTA: ""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."

I read both sentences, then read them again. Then i decided to place my brain in a warm bath, and not think any more for the day.
/f*cking idiots
2013-10-05 07:44:51 PM  
1 vote:

Bucky Katt: 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.

Dude is a parasite plain and simple.


Wonder if he's related to that douchebag in Arizona, the polygamist who has 27 kids by three or four women, never works and collects welfare on all of them because Jeezus.
2013-10-05 07:42:34 PM  
1 vote:

likefunbutnot: 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.


And then BOOM! MRSA

/or a spider bite
//or a slippery wet floor
///or angry bees
////or virtually anything
2013-10-05 07:37:22 PM  
1 vote:

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?


He saw it on the Internet. It was posted by a French model.
2013-10-05 07:32:44 PM  
1 vote:

HempHead: 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.


No he isn't.

The fine for the first year is $95 or 1% of his income, whichever is greater.  So if he's making $9500 a year he's right.  If he's making any more than that, however, the fine goes up.
2013-10-05 07:25:25 PM  
1 vote:

BumpInTheNight: Craptastic: BumpInTheNight: [www.gregcollettforidaho.com image 157x220]Greg Collett, running for State Rep in Idaho.


That's right, programmer who can't afford all his kids wants to decide on the fate of yours.

THAT guy has known the touch of an actual woman?

They're all foster children so maybe not.  That concept just raises even more red flags like how does someone who can't afford to insure his kids keep getting allowed to buy more?


Wait, these are foster children?  What irresponsible government agency is giving him children he can't afford to insure properly?
2013-10-05 07:20:46 PM  
1 vote:
According to his bio, he is a Mormon.  Add more crazy to the fire.
2013-10-05 07:18:33 PM  
1 vote:

BumpInTheNight: [www.gregcollettforidaho.com image 157x220]Greg Collett, running for State Rep in Idaho.


That's right, programmer who can't afford all his kids wants to decide on the fate of yours.



i39.tinypic.comView Full Size
2013-10-05 07:18:21 PM  
1 vote:

Craptastic: BumpInTheNight: [www.gregcollettforidaho.com image 157x220]Greg Collett, running for State Rep in Idaho.


That's right, programmer who can't afford all his kids wants to decide on the fate of yours.

THAT guy has known the touch of an actual woman?


They're all foster children so maybe not.  That concept just raises even more red flags like how does someone who can't afford to insure his kids keep getting allowed to buy more?
2013-10-05 07:16:08 PM  
1 vote:

BumpInTheNight: [www.gregcollettforidaho.com image 157x220]Greg Collett, running for State Rep in Idaho.


That's right, programmer who can't afford all his kids wants to decide on the fate of yours.


THAT guy has known the touch of an actual woman?
2013-10-05 07:06:43 PM  
1 vote:
GOP voters putting themselves in a position where they're more likely to die early?

i2.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
2013-10-05 06:54:20 PM  
1 vote:
"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.

He's exactly the right age bracket for a death blow heart attack. Just about 37 to 43 yo is when they start dropping.

//died unexpectedly
//died suddenly
2013-10-05 06:51:30 PM  
1 vote:

Coco LaFemme: 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*

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.


I think this butthook is also running for state legislature.  Seems like the same guy...
2013-10-05 06:51:20 PM  
1 vote:

Daniels: 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.


We have insane farkers who are willing to shut down the government over a heavily compromised plan.  What possibility do you actually think there is of getting anything even close to single-payer in place with them around?!  This is the first step.  We've already waited for far, far too long to take that step.
2013-10-05 06:45:33 PM  
1 vote:
"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 06:45:22 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:38:02 PM  
1 vote:
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 06:37:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:29:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:28:57 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:26:16 PM  
1 vote:
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 06:14:41 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:05:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:00:44 PM  
1 vote:

GhostFish: And this guy is a software developer?


He does the cows for Farmville.
2013-10-05 05:57:01 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:53:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:49:23 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:47:20 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:44:41 PM  
1 vote:

Frozboz: You guys are glossing over the best part.  The dude that has all 10 kids covered by Medicaid also believes:

FTA: "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

*facepalm*


I think somebody should be double-checking his code...
2013-10-05 05:44:07 PM  
1 vote:
This guy ran for office.   http://www.gregcollettforidaho.com/
2013-10-05 05:40:48 PM  
1 vote:

Coco LaFemme: vartian: 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.

You make it sound like I'm advocating for eugenics or something.  I'm not.  I'm advocating for common sense.  If you're poor and can barely afford to care for yourself, it makes absolutely no sense to have that many children.  If you've got so many kids that you can't afford to insure them and you have to put everyone on Medicaid, that's a problem.

Condoms are cheaper than health insurance.  Wrap that shiat up.


Keep in mind... If Reps stopped trying to defund, hamper or close Planned Parenthood, there are also cheap/free birth control pills. Heck, the state of Maine (when I was there from 2001-2006) gave away condoms upon request, without red tape or any tracking. All of that is cheaper and easier than the responsibility of being a parent. I made sure that I was never in a position to get pregnant when I couldn't afford more than myself... Because I want my children to not be in serious want.
2013-10-05 05:35:47 PM  
1 vote:

Frozboz: You guys are glossing over the best part.  The dude that has all 10 kids covered by Medicaid also believes:

FTA: "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

*facepalm*


Maybe he thinks keeping his kids out of the public school and homeschooling them himself evens out the balance.
2013-10-05 05:32:42 PM  
1 vote:

spcMike: swaniefrmreddeer: vartian:

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

I was trying to be absurd, but the people against healthcare reform are the ones who will end up costing everybody when they show up in the ER. Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US and you can't get blood from a stone.

Whatever, you're canadian, what would you know about proper healthcare.


I went to the ER in the states once. They maxed out my credit card and I had insurance.
2013-10-05 05:31:38 PM  
1 vote:

swaniefrmreddeer: FloydA:

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.

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.



if memory serves, and sometimes it dont
that was the "price" for buying out the charity hospitals
2013-10-05 05:00:37 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-10-05 04:43:06 PM  
1 vote:
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?
2013-10-05 04:35:29 PM  
1 vote:

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...
2013-10-05 03:43:56 PM  
1 vote:
FloydA:

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.

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.
 
Displayed 124 of 124 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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