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.

(LA Times)   So, the lady who's been making the rounds on cable news claiming that Obamacare is causing her to trade her cheap plan for an expensive one? Well, one reporter actually followed up with her on this, with unsurprising results   (latimes.com) divider line 415
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8364 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2013 at 2:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



415 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-01 11:48:34 AM  
same thing happened when that salon reporter followed up with some hannity guests. it was all rightwing lies and bullshiat, as usual.
 
2013-11-01 11:55:33 AM  
Looks like the link is making the same claims as the lady.
 
2013-11-01 12:04:17 PM  
Gee, any bets on the whole "millions will lose their insurance or have to pay 2-3-10 times as much" Conservative talking point having all the validity as their "The Obamacare website cost $600 million" talking point?
 
2013-11-01 12:09:18 PM  

FlashHarry: i saw that story linked in a salon article. i think it's this link:  http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77990231/


thanks for the link. That story is about what I expected.
I just had a similar conversation with my mother (who has a medicare substitute plan) but thought she would have to choose and lose a bunch of coverage. Of course, she doesn't. She and my dad have been watching Fox and never even checked to see if they could save some dough. I walked them through the website. Even though they don't qualify for subsidy, there were several options that are cheaper than and very similar to their current coverage. They need to stop believing the news and investigate for themselves!
 
2013-11-01 12:18:07 PM  
So.  What's based on lies again?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-11-01 12:21:29 PM  
I'm still waiting for the first poll data on how many people even wanted to keep these crap plans.


Still, I wonder wonder they keep farking up this way.  There has to be someone out there who had a crappy plan and is willing to claim they wanted to keep it, even if they are lying.  Maybe those sorts of people didn't have any insurance at all, but you would think that some politico would have forseen this and found some guy that hates Obama and set him up with a substandard plan just for this circumstance.

It's not like they haven't been tripped up this way many many times before.
 
2013-11-01 12:22:59 PM  

ManateeGag: So.  What's based on lies again?


pretty much the entire republican platform.
 
2013-11-01 12:27:17 PM  
pinstripebindi.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-01 12:34:44 PM  
I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov.
 
2013-11-01 12:35:18 PM  
And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.
 
2013-11-01 12:35:36 PM  

mrshowrules: [pinstripebindi.files.wordpress.com image 275x206]


I wonder if she still has a residual scar on her face...

/at least now she can get some quality care if needed...
 
2013-11-01 12:38:05 PM  
And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us too.

Shoot your television.
 
2013-11-01 12:45:29 PM  

Two Dogs Farking: I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov.


Have all my photos 'shopped to include a tin-foil hat, but I'm convinced just by the volume and frenzy of these "news stories" and all the other BS going on right now that money is being spent at a desperate rate to damage ACA and Obama as much as possible while there's still a chance.

I'm just hoping the Koch brothers go broke soon.
 
2013-11-01 12:46:46 PM  
So she'll have to pay less for a shiatty catastrophic coverage plan that actually covers more doctor visits, or she can opt to pay the gargantuan sum of $40 a month extra and get a plan that's substantially better?

I can't wait for the anti-ACA shills to come in and start white-knighting her.
 
2013-11-01 12:51:11 PM  

Cagey B: I can't wait for the anti-ACA shills to come in and start white-knighting her


I wouldn't hold my breath. They tend to stay away from these threads.
 
2013-11-01 01:08:21 PM  
Ah.  Ok.  So she's an attention-whoring sack of shiat.  Too harsh lady?  Throwing out politically and/or attention-getting bullshiat isn't that big of a deal but there are plenty of people out there, many not very smart (admittedly), who need help but will shy away from investigating their own health insurance situation thanks to your assholery.
 
2013-11-01 01:10:03 PM  
Another instance of the right crying wolf.
 
2013-11-01 01:12:50 PM  
I just went through this morning explaining to a bunch of wingers that their insurance costs won't rise if they can't afford it and that their coverage will go up.

These people are retarded.
 
2013-11-01 01:18:47 PM  
Is this a different woman, or a repeat of the four other "news media debunks persons claims about Obamacare" stories we've had this week?
 
2013-11-01 01:27:34 PM  
1) fight against Obama (lose)
2) fight against Obama as a straw-man/empty chair (lose)
3) fight against Obama's legacy (lose)

They really have to switch gears and start losing against Biden or Hillary.
 
2013-11-01 01:32:05 PM  

mrshowrules: They really have to switch gears and start losing against Biden or Hillary.


Already tried that:

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-01 01:38:05 PM  
Didn't we have someone on fark who thought this was going to happen to her? I seem to remember her getting made fun of quite a bit.
 
2013-11-01 01:38:59 PM  

UberDave: Ah.  Ok.  So she's an attention-whoring sack of shiat.  Too harsh lady?  Throwing out politically and/or attention-getting bullshiat isn't that big of a deal but there are plenty of people out there, many not very smart (admittedly), who need help but will shy away from investigating their own health insurance situation thanks to your assholery.


So this woman is a realtor... getting her face out there on the talking-head programs.  Viewers of those programs aren't exactly fact-checking what's thrown their way, so to them she's just a local celebrity now with similar political views.  A little name recognition, face recognition and before you know it she'll be challenging Cookie Kwan on the East Side.

Yes, THAT Cookie Kwan, #1 on the East Side!

vpb: I'm still waiting for the first poll data on how many people even wanted to keep these crap plans.


I'm trying to think of an analogy, where the government stepped in and dramatically altered an industry like this.  I think airbags in cars works... at first people thought they were expensive luxuries and yeah there were some growing pains.  But now, even if you could, would you want to go without an airbag to save a few bucks?  And just like health insurance, you're just one other dumb-f*ck driver away from needing it 10 ways to Tuesday no matter how careful you are.
 
2013-11-01 01:46:16 PM  
People seem to forget a key word that the President said: "If you *like* the plan you have, you get to keep it."

Who the hell *likes* those crap plans that don't pay for sh*t and get canceled as soon as you actually get sick?
 
2013-11-01 01:48:33 PM  

factoryconnection: Yes, THAT Cookie Kwan, #1 on the East Side!


STAY OUT OF THE EAST SIDE!

/It was the west side, BTW
 
2013-11-01 01:53:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: People seem to forget a key word that the President said: "If you *like* the plan you have, you get to keep it."


He should have said, "If you like the plan you have, and the insurance company continues to offer it, you can keep it".

I really hate it when someone over-reacts to someone else's action and blames the initial event.

"They attacked us!  So we have to spy on you to prevent future attacks.  Blame them not me!"

"My insurance got cancelled because Obamacare, not the whim of some insurance company."

"We have to lay off 400 workers because Clinton got elected and he might raise taxes in the future!"  (happened to my Dad.  /CSB)
 
2013-11-01 01:58:09 PM  

Deedeemarz: They need to stop believing the news and investigate for themselves!


I believe the phrase you are looking for is "Study it out".
 
2013-11-01 02:02:08 PM  

James!: Another instance of the right crying wolf "i'm a dumbass".

 
2013-11-01 02:08:18 PM  
When I read about her originally, I stopped at the point where she said that she hadn't bothered to look on coveredca.com, because that tells me that she's obviously as dumb as a rock and it's a waste of everyone's time to pursue her "plight" any further.
 
2013-11-01 02:10:23 PM  

haemaker: "My insurance got cancelled because Obamacare, not the whim of some insurance company."


The new regulations in the Affordable Care Act make this one sort of true; insurance companies would happily fleece the rubes till the cows come home otherwise. It's like saying that a crooked casino has to close because of new gaming commission regulations; they don't have to close, but they won't be as profitable if they follow the new regulations, so they close and blame "government regulations" for not being able to provide their customers with the "gaming experience" they want - never mind the fact that no one actually wanted a "gaming experience" which provided no way for the punter to win.

I'm still looking for someone who says they actually "liked" their insurance coverage that was cancelled. I'm sure there is someone out there, but I haven't found them yet.
 
2013-11-01 02:14:23 PM  
It doesn't matter. No one who believed her in the first place will be swayed by anything this reporter writes.
 
2013-11-01 02:14:31 PM  
There undeniably will be people in the individual market today who will come out losers. They will pay more for insurance that covers the same or less services with the same or more cost sharing. They will argue that they should not be paying for others' health care. If they want to argue that, I'd be happy to ask them if those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care should just die.
 
2013-11-01 02:15:52 PM  
It's funny I read about the "Bronze" plans and think "OMG that plan is so shiatty why in the hell would anyone buy that" and then I find out that before many individual plans where even shiattier than that before Obamacare.

I guess if you were a young healthy guy and just wanted a plan in case you got hit by a bus, it might be ok.
 
2013-11-01 02:16:55 PM  

Lost Thought 00: It doesn't matter. No one who believed her in the first place will be swayed by anything this reporter writes.


Yep.
 
2013-11-01 02:18:50 PM  
Vicar It's about this letter you sent me regarding my insurance claim.
Devious Oh, yeah, yeah - well, you see, it's just that we're not...as yet...totally satisfied with the grounds of your claim.
Vicar But it says something about filling my mouth in with cement.
Devious Oh well, that's just insurance jargon, you know.
Vicar But my car was hit by a lorry while standing in the garage and you refuse to pay my claim.
Devious(rising and crossing to a filing cabinet) Oh well, reverend Morrison...in your policy...in your policy...(he open the drawer of the filing cabinet and takes out a shabby old sports jacket; he feels in the pocket and pulls out a crumbled dog-eared piece of paper then puts the coat back and shuts the filing cabinet)...here we are. It states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.
Vicar Oh dear.
Devious You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Neverpay' policy, which, you know, if you never claim is very worthwhile...but you had to claim, and, well, there it is.
 
2013-11-01 02:19:30 PM  

Lost Thought 00: It doesn't matter. No one who believed her in the first place will be swayed by anything this reporter writes.


Yea, but it arms the friends and families of people like this, who can then show them their options.

I wonder how Obamacare is for insurance brokers who cater to individuals?  It seems like they might be worse off so they help introduce confusion.

Hmm, a real estate agent being misled by an insurance agent.  How fitting.

"I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The right insurance is the insurance that's for sale. And the right person is anyone."
 
2013-11-01 02:19:55 PM  
Maria Barteromo isn't an intelligent news reporter who delves deep into issues and prepares meticulously for interviews?

Imagine my shock.
 
2013-11-01 02:20:45 PM  
I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.
 
2013-11-01 02:22:23 PM  
Will the various cable news shows that featured this woman making false claims now make a point of correcting their stories on air?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

/man it hurts to laugh that hard.
 
2013-11-01 02:22:43 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.


they all work for Wall St and big business.
 
2013-11-01 02:23:38 PM  
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-11-01 02:23:41 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Maria Barteromo isn't an intelligent news reporter who delves deep into issues and prepares meticulously for interviews?

Imagine my shock.


oh she does her job just fine. she's paid to defend the bottom line of the corporations.
 
2013-11-01 02:24:13 PM  
The sad truth is that Cavallaro has been very poorly served by the health insurance industry

youdontsay.jpg
 
2013-11-01 02:25:17 PM  

vpb: I'm still waiting for the first poll data on how many people even wanted to keep these crap plans.



Problem is that, like this woman, there are many who have no idea they have a crap plan.
Half her talking points were debunked because she didn't even know what she had.
She just looked at numbers and made assumptions.
 
2013-11-01 02:26:12 PM  

Hobodeluxe: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Maria Barteromo isn't an intelligent news reporter who delves deep into issues and prepares meticulously for interviews?

Imagine my shock.

oh she does her job just fine. she's paid to defend the bottom line of the corporations.


No, she's paid to be a Money Honey.  The folks watching her on CNBC don't need convincing to be on the side of corporate interests.

She's the eye candy there to balance out the visual of Dobby the House Elf Larry Kudlow.
 
2013-11-01 02:26:15 PM  

factoryconnection: UberDave: Ah.  Ok.  So she's an attention-whoring sack of shiat.  Too harsh lady?  Throwing out politically and/or attention-getting bullshiat isn't that big of a deal but there are plenty of people out there, many not very smart (admittedly), who need help but will shy away from investigating their own health insurance situation thanks to your assholery.

So this woman is a realtor... getting her face out there on the talking-head programs.  Viewers of those programs aren't exactly fact-checking what's thrown their way, so to them she's just a local celebrity now with similar political views.  A little name recognition, face recognition and before you know it she'll be challenging Cookie Kwan on the East Side.

Yes, THAT Cookie Kwan, #1 on the East Side!

vpb: I'm still waiting for the first poll data on how many people even wanted to keep these crap plans.

I'm trying to think of an analogy, where the government stepped in and dramatically altered an industry like this.  I think airbags in cars works... at first people thought they were expensive luxuries and yeah there were some growing pains.  But now, even if you could, would you want to go without an airbag to save a few bucks?  And just like health insurance, you're just one other dumb-f*ck driver away from needing it 10 ways to Tuesday no matter how careful you are.


I've been thinking of it like a white collar OSHA.  Your employer is required to provide you with a moderately safe working environment.  There's an agency dedicated to accepting reports to the contrary and investigating, and there are numerous regulations covering a slew of industries.

Reason: Employees can not be reasonably expected to accurately assess the dangers associated with the work they are being compelled to do for a paycheck.  They have neither the bargaining posture, nor the expertise to make those judgements.

Now, we've created an entity that requires insurers to provide you with moderately comprehensive coverage.  There's a system in place with regulations just like OSHA has.

Reason: People can not be reasonably expected to accurately assess their own health risks, and they have neither the bargaining posture to debate their risks, nor the expertise to make judgements about what those risks are.

It's just protecting consumers from shady corner cutting and poorly written contracts like OSHA protects employees.  Otherwise, at least the rationale behind it's necessity is very similar.
 
2013-11-01 02:27:02 PM  

Serious Black: There undeniably will be people in the individual market today who will come out losers. They will pay more for insurance that covers the same or less services with the same or more cost sharing. They will argue that they should not be paying for others' health care. If they want to argue that, I'd be happy to ask them if those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care should just die.


The sad point is that they already are paying for the uninsured. Now with Obamacare, they'll still pay some to covered the  less insuredsinstead of the  completely un-insureds. And frankly, if he was paying very little, then he was the subsidized one, for sure.
 
2013-11-01 02:27:08 PM  
People are actually lying about PPACA, often for ideological reasons?, but sometimes just out of fear and stupidity?

Color me shocked.  I would never have guessed that Humans would do such a thing.

/next you'll be telling me that medicare is a government program or some such hogwash.
 
2013-11-01 02:27:28 PM  
I went to 0bamacare.gov and it took 33 minutes to load and then I discovered that it installed a trojan on my computer that linked my checking and savings account directly to the presidents and was taking all of my money. I called to complain and had to press one for English. I was on hold for 27 minutes then it just went skaweeeeeeeeee-errrrrt. I hung up. But if I wanted health insurance I would have gotten health insurance. I DON'T WANT IT! I am a healthy white male with Jesus on my side. I have all the protection I need.
 
2013-11-01 02:28:33 PM  

Lord_Baull: I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.


1) Deliberately misinform the public about the ACA.
2) Bring people you misinformed onto your network to describe their dissatisfaction with the ACA as they understand it.
3) Act shocked when these people are misinformed about the ACA.
 
2013-11-01 02:29:37 PM  

Serious Black: There undeniably will be people in the individual market today who will come out losers. They will pay more for insurance that covers the same or less services with the same or more cost sharing. They will argue that they should not be paying for others' health care. If they want to argue that, I'd be happy to ask them if those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care should just die.


Do you not recall the applause that exact argument received in the Republican primary debates last year?

Here it is again for anyone who missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56cfSyWOkI

In other words, don't be surprised if the response is a resounding "yes" when you pose that question.
 
2013-11-01 02:29:48 PM  

busy chillin': I went to 0bamacare.gov and it took 33 minutes to load and then I discovered that it installed a trojan on my computer that linked my checking and savings account directly to the presidents and was taking all of my money. I called to complain and had to press one for English. I was on hold for 27 minutes then it just went skaweeeeeeeeee-errrrrt. I hung up. But if I wanted health insurance I would have gotten health insurance. I DON'T WANT IT! I am a healthy white male with Jesus on my side. I have all the protection I need.


Do you drive an F-150 or a Silverado?
 
2013-11-01 02:30:03 PM  

busy chillin': I went to 0bamacare.gov and it took 33 minutes to load and then I discovered that it installed a trojan on my computer that linked my checking and savings account directly to the presidents and was taking all of my money. I called to complain and had to press one for English. I was on hold for 27 minutes then it just went skaweeeeeeeeee-errrrrt. I hung up. But if I wanted health insurance I would have gotten health insurance. I DON'T WANT IT! I am a healthy white male with Jesus on my side. I have all the protection I need.


No gun? You need a Bushmaster AR-15. It'll get your Conservative Card back. I will sell for only $3000. Ammo is $2/round.
 
2013-11-01 02:30:38 PM  

BeesNuts: Lord_Baull: I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.

1) Deliberately misinform the public about the ACA.
2) Bring people you misinformed onto your network to describe their dissatisfaction with the ACA as they understand it.
3) Act shocked when these people are misinformed about the ACA.


static.guim.co.uk
It's the circle of life
 
2013-11-01 02:30:39 PM  
I must say that it is pretty frustrating to keep having to defend a Republican plan from Republican attacks.

Can you imagine the shrieking if we had managed to pass a 'public option'?
 
2013-11-01 02:31:42 PM  
Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?
 
2013-11-01 02:31:59 PM  
You think it is to much to ask to get this lady to admit she was full of it, then sincerely apologize?
 
2013-11-01 02:32:08 PM  
 
2013-11-01 02:32:11 PM  
You can still keep any catastrophic or cut-rate, non-qualifying plan your insurance provider wants to offer (unless your State reulatory board has outlawed them). You are just now considered under insured and subject to a 1% increase in your tax rate, because of your added risk to the National healthcare system.
 
2013-11-01 02:33:14 PM  
This reminds me of that one time, when they reported on the Alabama Leprachaun, and all the people were saying they saw him.  Did the media drug test them?  No.

//this is actually a pretty sh*tty analogy on several levels, but I so do enjoy that report.
 
2013-11-01 02:33:29 PM  

mrshowrules: [pinstripebindi.files.wordpress.com image 275x206]


Came for that.
 
2013-11-01 02:33:31 PM  

Witty_Retort: Problem is that, like this woman, there are many who have no idea they have a crap plan.
Half her talking points were debunked because she didn't even know what she had.
She just looked at numbers and made assumptions.


And that's how insurance companies make obscene profits - they rely on people not understanding their policies, or exactly what they're getting for X dollars per month, subject to cancellation, etc. If most people with these kinds of policies actually understood them, they would be cancelling them immediately, as they are not worth the paper they're printed on, not just even in, but especially in the case of a catastrophic illness.
 
2013-11-01 02:33:33 PM  
I went to Zerobanjobammy.gov and tried to log in. 666 minutes later, I was having teh ghey sex with the ghost of Saul Alinsky in a madrassa.
 
2013-11-01 02:33:53 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Because accidents happen.
 
2013-11-01 02:34:02 PM  
FTFA: Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.

She's pissed that she can't keep this? Even by pre-ACA standards, this is a shiatty policy.
Also, I'd like to say, "I can't believe that news broadcasters are putting people on the air to talk about the 'then and now' of healthcare choices when those people haven't even been to the website," but I totally believe it.
 
2013-11-01 02:34:24 PM  
Her current plan isn't even that crappy really. But, the new plan Bronze plan she can get will end up being cheaper for her. Yeah, she'll pay more in a doctor's visit, but she already saved the difference in whatever month she goes to see that doctor. People just need to do some farking research. I realize it's harder than listening to "HERP DERP OBAMA-DERP!" on the radio, but jeeze guys. Give it a chance.
 
2013-11-01 02:34:54 PM  

Serious Black: There undeniably will be people in the individual market today who will come out losers. They will pay more for insurance that covers the same or less services with the same or more cost sharing. They will argue that they should not be paying for others' health care. If they want to argue that, I'd be happy to ask them if those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care should just die.


And they'll say, Yes.
 
2013-11-01 02:35:32 PM  

ox45tallboy: Serious Black: There undeniably will be people in the individual market today who will come out losers. They will pay more for insurance that covers the same or less services with the same or more cost sharing. They will argue that they should not be paying for others' health care. If they want to argue that, I'd be happy to ask them if those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care should just die.

Do you not recall the applause that exact argument received in the Republican primary debates last year?

Here it is again for anyone who missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56cfSyWOkI

In other words, don't be surprised if the response is a resounding "yes Amen" when you pose that question.


FTFY
 
2013-11-01 02:35:48 PM  

FlashHarry: Ooh, hey, look! Yet another GOP scoop turns out to be complete bullshiat!

and, yes, this one's about benghazi.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-01 02:36:23 PM  

lockers: You think it is to much to ask to get this lady to admit she was full of it, then sincerely apologize?


No, its not, but doubtful it would happen.

The only qualification that most people who are interviewed on TV possess, is the desire to be interviewed on TV.
 
2013-11-01 02:36:40 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


There is no such thing as an person who is not at risk of running up an enormous medical bill at any moment. There is no such thing as a person who does not need insurance.
 
2013-11-01 02:36:43 PM  
Look man, I lost my insurance thanks to Fartbleacher Obenzene.  Did you really expect me to spend more than the time it takes to f*ck my sister with my crippled dick on finding quality, comparable coverage on healthcare.gov or the exchange sites?
 
2013-11-01 02:37:06 PM  

MrBallou: Two Dogs Farking: I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov.

Have all my photos 'shopped to include a tin-foil hat, but I'm convinced just by the volume and frenzy of these "news stories" and all the other BS going on right now that money is being spent at a desperate rate to damage ACA and Obama as much as possible while there's still a chance.

I'm just hoping the Koch brothers go broke soon.


Fracking. They are going to get rich fracking. Because water in your oil table is a small price to pay.
 
2013-11-01 02:37:08 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Because tomorrow when you take a step off a curb and get run over by a bus, your previously "totally healthy" ass is not going to be quite so "totally healthy" anymore.

And, if you are under 30, you can get a catastrophic plan. If you are over 30, you can still get a catastrophic plan and pay a small penalty.
 
2013-11-01 02:37:17 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Because emergency rooms are filled with people in the 18-45 range that were until that point totally healthy.
 
2013-11-01 02:37:37 PM  

ox45tallboy: Serious Black: There undeniably will be people in the individual market today who will come out losers. They will pay more for insurance that covers the same or less services with the same or more cost sharing. They will argue that they should not be paying for others' health care. If they want to argue that, I'd be happy to ask them if those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care should just die.

Do you not recall the applause that exact argument received in the Republican primary debates last year?

Here it is again for anyone who missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56cfSyWOkI

In other words, don't be surprised if the response is a resounding "yes" when you pose that question.


Evil High Priest: And they'll say, Yes.


Sadly, I think you're right that the hardcore Tea Partiers will agree. But the rest of the country will think they're complete savages.
 
2013-11-01 02:37:37 PM  

ox45tallboy: Serious Black: There undeniably will be people in the individual market today who will come out losers. They will pay more for insurance that covers the same or less services with the same or more cost sharing. They will argue that they should not be paying for others' health care. If they want to argue that, I'd be happy to ask them if those who cannot afford to pay for their own health care should just die.

Do you not recall the applause that exact argument received in the Republican primary debates last year?

Here it is again for anyone who missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56cfSyWOkI

In other words, don't be surprised if the response is a resounding "yes" when you pose that question.


Is that seriously the best video you could find?
 
2013-11-01 02:38:06 PM  

kidgenius: Her current plan isn't even that crappy really. But, the new plan Bronze plan she can get will end up being cheaper for her. Yeah, she'll pay more in a doctor's visit, but she already saved the difference in whatever month she goes to see that doctor. People just need to do some farking research. I realize it's harder than listening to "HERP DERP OBAMA-DERP!" on the radio, but jeeze guys. Give it a chance.


Plus, she's 60.  She should be going to the doctor's office (or at least some specialists) more than twice a year.
 
2013-11-01 02:39:12 PM  
haemaker
trotsky


A Ford F350 dually with a gun rack and huge bull nuts hangin' off the hitch. It's a thing of beauty.

/come on y'all, that sh*t was satirical
 
2013-11-01 02:39:31 PM  

busy chillin': BeesNuts: Lord_Baull: I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.

1) Deliberately misinform the public about the ACA.
2) Bring people you misinformed onto your network to describe their dissatisfaction with the ACA as they understand it.
3) Act shocked when these people are misinformed about the ACA.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]
It's the circle of life


HA!  Omwenya!  Obo-enwyaaaaaaaaa-oooooooooooooom.
 
2013-11-01 02:39:32 PM  

FlashHarry: Ooh, hey, look! Yet another GOP scoop turns out to be complete bullshiat!

and, yes, this one's about benghazi.


Isn't amazing that value voters don't value, amongst other things in the 10 commandments, honesty.
 
2013-11-01 02:39:52 PM  

James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.


There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.
 
2013-11-01 02:40:13 PM  

ox45tallboy: Witty_Retort: Problem is that, like this woman, there are many who have no idea they have a crap plan.
Half her talking points were debunked because she didn't even know what she had.
She just looked at numbers and made assumptions.

And that's how insurance companies make obscene profits - they rely on people not understanding their policies, or exactly what they're getting for X dollars per month, subject to cancellation, etc. If most people with these kinds of policies actually understood them, they would be cancelling them immediately, as they are not worth the paper they're printed on, not just even in, but especially in the case of a catastrophic illness.


That CBS woman the other day was a classic example. She thought "copay" described how much the insurance helped her out, instead of how much she is helping the insurance company out with every doctor visit.

I will say this....

I've outlined the ACA to a few people that aren't completely retarded. They have heard a little here and there about various things. After I'm done explaining they usually go, "Oh.....that's not really all that bad actually", especially when I explain the 80/20 rule and how last year I actually got a check in the mail from Aetna, so that provision is definitely working.
 
2013-11-01 02:40:20 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Here's the thing though - you probably think you are in that healthy 18-45 range where you never get sick.  But I am guessing that based on your reasoning ability regarding the fact that WE ALL GET ASSF*CKED WHEN YOU GO TO THE ER, you probably have a prion eating away your brain.

You should probably get that checked out.

No insurance?

Do you need us to start a FarkUs project to collect money for you, bootstrappy?
 
2013-11-01 02:40:26 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


To subsidize the old people who do get sick, since you plan on being one eventually. Also to subsidize your neighbors who work in businesses you frequent, to subsidize the health of the people who handle your food, and the people who work with your children, not to mention the mental health of the people who have access to firearms. Then let's also talk about how medical bankruptcies (the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States) affect the economy as a whole, and you as an individual when you go to apply for a loan.

It's basically the same reason people with no kids still pay property taxes to support the schools - the indirect benefits to living in an educated society actually exceed the direct benefits of not having to pay for your child's education, just like the benefits of living in a healthy society far exceed the direct benefits of having your own cancer treatments paid for.
 
2013-11-01 02:41:06 PM  
I was a perfectly healthy 29 year old until I got hit by a cab one month and had a kidney stone the next.
 
2013-11-01 02:41:31 PM  

InmanRoshi: I went to Zerobanjobammy.gov and tried to log in. 666 minutes later, I was having teh ghey sex with the ghost of Saul Alinsky in a madrassa.


Don't mix intentional spelling mistakes with intentional sarcasm, it's distracting. I'm on your side, mate.
 
2013-11-01 02:41:44 PM  

geek_mars: In other words, don't be surprised if the response is a resounding "yes Amen" when you pose that question.

FTFY


I stand corrected.
 
2013-11-01 02:43:03 PM  

spman: James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.

There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.


You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.  Get insurance kid.
 
2013-11-01 02:43:34 PM  
I'm thinking of setting up a business where for a fee I help all of these idiots navigate the healthcare marketplace.  It's staggering the number of people in my Facebook feed who cannot see what is right in front of their faces.

So many of these people are lower-income white people who just want to be pissed at Obama.  They do their search on the website, find the worst plan, and post that to FB as if that's all they could find.  One idiot I know who claimed to have a $1200/mo income searched and found a bare bones plan at $263/mo or something and lamented his bad luck.  I went and searched using the same income data and found that because he was within 125% of the poverty lines, he'd get extensive premium support.  Yet he just threw up his hands and blamed Obama.

All these bootstrappy types become such whiny little biatches when the ACA is involved.  There's got to be a way for me to make money off of this.
 
2013-11-01 02:43:56 PM  

BeesNuts: Is that seriously the best video you could find?


Yes, I'm on limited bandwidth tethered to my cell, which is currently throttled because I'm over my data limit. If you can find a better one, by all means, post it.
 
2013-11-01 02:44:14 PM  
What is really surprising to me is the inability of the right to find anyone that can backup their claim that the ACA hurt them. I haven't seen a single story I can think of where complaints about increased premiums, policy cancellations, or reduced access to care turned out to be anything other than people who didn't understand, or were intentionally misinformed about the impact of Obamacare on their plan.

Are there any actual cases where someone is explicitly, verifiably, worse off now than they were before Obamacare was passed?
 
2013-11-01 02:44:24 PM  
Feel free to ignore the Obamacare numbers if you don't like projections, but the average non-group insurance premium is 15% of income for people shopping on the individual market. Obamacare caps that at 9.5% or under unless you're above 400% of the poverty line.

www.commonwealthfund.org

If you think you can get quality health insurance for like $50 a month, you're crazy. And if you're under 30, or qualify for a hardship exemption, you can still get a catastrophic plan.

I really just don't think people understand what market based health insurance actually costs...
 
2013-11-01 02:44:33 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


You won't fall within that 18-45 range and be totally healthy forever. Either you'll get hit by a bus or develop cancer while still in that age range and spend a ton of money treating those things, or you'll grow old and THEN get hit by a bus or develop cancer and spend a ton of money treating those things.
 
2013-11-01 02:45:06 PM  

ox45tallboy: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

To subsidize the old people who do get sick, since you plan on being one eventually. Also to subsidize your neighbors who work in businesses you frequent, to subsidize the health of the people who handle your food, and the people who work with your children, not to mention the mental health of the people who have access to firearms. Then let's also talk about how medical bankruptcies (the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States) affect the economy as a whole, and you as an individual when you go to apply for a loan.

It's basically the same reason people with no kids still pay property taxes to support the schools - the indirect benefits to living in an educated society actually exceed the direct benefits of not having to pay for your child's education, just like the benefits of living in a healthy society far exceed the direct benefits of having your own cancer treatments paid for.


Don't confuse them, the dears.  Just say the blah guy did it.
 
2013-11-01 02:45:18 PM  
I personally know people who are having a rate increase due to the ACA (various reasons for various people). So this is not all right wing lies. That's the big problem: separating out the reality from the Fox crap.

The overwhelming majority of people are seeing a benefit from the ACA. I have a teabagging co-worker that just said "I think I'm beginning to like your boy Obama" because our company pension crapped over the healthcare plan (presumably--and this the teabagger and I agree on-- NOT because of the ACA, but because of union negotiations last year). The ACA may give him his healthcare cheaply. Luckily NY is a cooperating state or he would be farked.
 
2013-11-01 02:46:03 PM  
Seriously, has there ever been a "outrage!" stated by any conservative Republican in the last 10 years that hasn't turned out to be a lie or at the very least an enormous exaggeration?

Really.  This has been so consistent in the last decade that it has gotten to the point of not even checking for any truth.
I'm sure that every conservative is really proud that every word they speak is so wrong that people just stare at them silently like I did when I would visit my mother in her memory care facility.
 
2013-11-01 02:46:21 PM  

James!: I was a perfectly healthy 29 year old until I got hit by a cab one month and had a kidney stone the next.


Your fault for not looking where you were going and drinking too much soda/tea. 
Why should anyone else pay for your irresponsibility?

/I keed, it is sad I have to day that.
 
2013-11-01 02:46:57 PM  

InmanRoshi: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because emergency rooms are filled with people in the 18-45 range that were until that point totally healthy.


Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience, but typically the reason people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it or can't afford it. Just because you force them to have it isn't going to resolve the second problem.

You talk about Republicans trying to wipe out the middle class by making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what do you think this is? You think the person working three minimum wage jobs just to keep food in their mouth and a roof over their head can afford to pay anything extra a month for insurance? You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?
 
2013-11-01 02:47:25 PM  

JustLookin: I'm thinking of setting up a business where for a fee I help all of these idiots navigate the healthcare marketplace.  It's staggering the number of people in my Facebook feed who cannot see what is right in front of their faces.

So many of these people are lower-income white people who just want to be pissed at Obama.  They do their search on the website, find the worst plan, and post that to FB as if that's all they could find.  One idiot I know who claimed to have a $1200/mo income searched and found a bare bones plan at $263/mo or something and lamented his bad luck.  I went and searched using the same income data and found that because he was within 125% of the poverty lines, he'd get extensive premium support.  Yet he just threw up his hands and blamed Obama.

All these bootstrappy types become such whiny little biatches when the ACA is involved.  There's got to be a way for me to make money off of this.


I've really thought about this too. I helped a friend who currently pays $700 a month to cover herself (with preexisting conditions) and her daughter find a better policy for $450 a month, before subsidies.

I know shopping for health insurance isn't easy, but I really don't think people know what individual market health insurance actually costs, or how the ACA law is actually structured.
 
2013-11-01 02:47:29 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: Seriously, has there ever been a "outrage!" stated by any conservative Republican in the last 10 years that hasn't turned out to be a lie or at the very least an enormous exaggeration?

Really.  This has been so consistent in the last decade that it has gotten to the point of not even checking for any truth.
I'm sure that every conservative is really proud that every word they speak is so wrong that people just stare at them silently like I did when I would visit my mother in her memory care facility.


The truth is irrelevant to the narrative. The ends justify the means to them.
 
2013-11-01 02:47:37 PM  

James!: spman: James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.

There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.

You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.  Get insurance kid.


This. If you aren't insured you are taking the risk of becoming the "taker" that the right wing warns us about.
 
2013-11-01 02:47:41 PM  

bmongar: James!: I was a perfectly healthy 29 year old until I got hit by a cab one month and had a kidney stone the next.

Your fault for not looking where you were going and drinking too much soda/tea. 
Why should anyone else pay for your irresponsibility?

/I keed, it is sad I have to day that.


They didn't, I had insurance.
 
2013-11-01 02:47:41 PM  

JustLookin: I'm thinking of setting up a business where for a fee I help all of these idiots navigate the healthcare marketplace.  It's staggering the number of people in my Facebook feed who cannot see what is right in front of their faces.


   This might actually be the biggest inherent fundamental flaw in Obamacare.   I think they can call it "Supermarket Self-Checkout Lane Syndrome".
 
2013-11-01 02:47:55 PM  
Every time I see Maria Bartilomo, my pants have trouble fitting correctly.
 
2013-11-01 02:48:18 PM  

spman: InmanRoshi: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because emergency rooms are filled with people in the 18-45 range that were until that point totally healthy.

Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience, but typically the reason people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it or can't afford it. Just because you force them to have it isn't going to resolve the second problem.

You talk about Republicans trying to wipe out the middle class by making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what do you think this is? You think the person working three minimum wage jobs just to keep food in their mouth and a roof over their head can afford to pay anything extra a month for insurance? You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?


So you're for single payer, then.
 
ecl
2013-11-01 02:48:22 PM  

James!: spman: James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.

There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.

You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.   Get insurance kid.

 
2013-11-01 02:48:42 PM  

aaronx: I must say that it is pretty frustrating to keep having to defend a Republican plan from Republican attacks.

Can you imagine the shrieking if we had managed to pass a 'public option'?


Typical Democratic failure in negotiation.  They always open with the compromise.  They should have demanded "single-payer" and fought tooth and nail for it and only begrudgingly accepting the regulation and the "public option" as a compromise.

The the GOP would be biatching and whining about why the country didn't have a personal mandate/exchanges today instead of a public option.  Actually, it would probably look alot the derpfest today but at least the US would be one step closer to single payer than it is now.
 
2013-11-01 02:49:21 PM  

aaronx: I must say that it is pretty frustrating to keep having to defend a Republican plan from Republican attacks.

Can you imagine the shrieking if we had managed to pass a 'public option'?


The shrieking would be worth it if we had managed to pass a public option
 
2013-11-01 02:49:24 PM  

James!: spman: James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.

There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.

You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.  Get insurance kid.


My favorite part is that his age range is 18 to FORTY FIVE.  First off, hands up, who's thirty+ and completely lacks health issues in here?  My guess is... one?  On the high end.  On the other side of things, this law benefits your 18-26 year olds by letting them stay on their parents plans.

So we're talking about healthy 27 to 45 year olds.  Who "don't need or want insurance".

What's your guess?  I think this kid's 19.
 
2013-11-01 02:49:27 PM  
spman: [words]

Sure you can derp, but can you herp the derp when sh*t gets real?
 
2013-11-01 02:49:44 PM  

Procerus: What is really surprising to me is the inability of the right to find anyone that can backup their claim that the ACA hurt them. I haven't seen a single story I can think of where complaints about increased premiums, policy cancellations, or reduced access to care turned out to be anything other than people who didn't understand, or were intentionally misinformed about the impact of Obamacare on their plan.

Are there any actual cases where someone is explicitly, verifiably, worse off now than they were before Obamacare was passed?


David Frum reported that he'll have to spend $200 a month more to get insurance with essentially the same cost sharing. He didn't comment on what kinds of care his prior policy covered and what his new policy will cover. I can't cry too much for him though; he almost certainly makes a good chunk of money writing for CNN and The Daily Beast and can almost certainly dump the legal maximum into his HSA every year.
 
2013-11-01 02:49:45 PM  

Serious Black: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

You won't fall within that 18-45 range and be totally healthy forever. Either you'll get hit by a bus or develop cancer while still in that age range and spend a ton of money treating those things, or you'll grow old and THEN get hit by a bus or develop cancer and spend a ton of money treating those things.


Hell, that description fits me to a tee. I rarely go to the doctor or get sick.

My Achilles's snapped this year requiring surgery, without insurance I would have been fooked. Life happens kid.
 
2013-11-01 02:50:13 PM  

spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience


The plural form of anecdote is bullshiat.
 
2013-11-01 02:50:43 PM  

spman: InmanRoshi: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because emergency rooms are filled with people in the 18-45 range that were until that point totally healthy.

Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience, but typically the reason people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it or can't afford it. Just because you force them to have it isn't going to resolve the second problem.

You talk about Republicans trying to wipe out the middle class by making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what do you think this is? You think the person working three minimum wage jobs just to keep food in their mouth and a roof over their head can afford to pay anything extra a month for insurance? You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?


Except under the Affordable Care Act, the guy making $30,000 a year wouldn't be paying $250 a month... A silver policy would cost him, on average, $210. A Bronze policy would cost him about $160.
 
2013-11-01 02:50:58 PM  
The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.
 
2013-11-01 02:51:21 PM  

ox45tallboy: BeesNuts: Is that seriously the best video you could find?

Yes, I'm on limited bandwidth tethered to my cell, which is currently throttled because I'm over my data limit. If you can find a better one, by all means, post it.


Ah, gotcha.  I might just.  That was abysmal.

Here.
 
2013-11-01 02:51:26 PM  

blackminded: aaronx: I must say that it is pretty frustrating to keep having to defend a Republican plan from Republican attacks.

Can you imagine the shrieking if we had managed to pass a 'public option'?

The shrieking would be worth it if we had managed to pass a public option


The shrieking justifies itself. Watching the impotent rage would be hilarious.
 
2013-11-01 02:51:54 PM  

spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,


Good lord.
 
2013-11-01 02:52:01 PM  

FlashHarry: same thing happened when that salon reporter followed up with some hannity guests. it was all rightwing lies and bullshiat, as usual.


And there is a certain farker who was claiming ignorance to these stories just an hour ago... I'm sure the slack-jawed yokel isn't here, of course...
 
2013-11-01 02:52:29 PM  

BeesNuts: James!: spman: James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.

There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.

You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.  Get insurance kid.

My favorite part is that his age range is 18 to FORTY FIVE.  First off, hands up, who's thirty+ and completely lacks health issues in here?  My guess is... one?  On the high end.  On the other side of things, this law benefits your 18-26 year olds by letting them stay on their parents plans.

So we're talking about healthy 27 to 45 year olds.  Who "don't need or want insurance".

What's your guess?  I think this kid's 19.


I'll be 30 in a little over a month, and under an infinitely long lookback window, I would have at least three pre-existing conditions that could be permanently barred from coverage: hydrocele removal, atrial fibrillation, and major depressive disorder. There goes treatment for my genitals, my heart, and my brain!
 
2013-11-01 02:52:55 PM  

spman: InmanRoshi: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because emergency rooms are filled with people in the 18-45 range that were until that point totally healthy.

Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience, but typically the reason people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it or can't afford it. Just because you force them to have it isn't going to resolve the second problem.

You talk about Republicans trying to wipe out the middle class by making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what do you think this is? You think the person working three minimum wage jobs just to keep food in their mouth and a roof over their head can afford to pay anything extra a month for insurance? You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?


So conservatives care about the poors now that they can use them as a means to their political end?

Cute.
 
2013-11-01 02:53:07 PM  
I read the whole thing then went wtf...the moonie times wrote that? then realized it wasn't
 
2013-11-01 02:53:43 PM  

Procerus: What is really surprising to me is the inability of the right to find anyone that can backup their claim that the ACA hurt them. I haven't seen a single story I can think of where complaints about increased premiums, policy cancellations, or reduced access to care turned out to be anything other than people who didn't understand, or were intentionally misinformed about the impact of Obamacare on their plan.

Are there any actual cases where someone is explicitly, verifiably, worse off now than they were before Obamacare was passed?


Smokers are kind of getting the shaft which they seem to feel more acutely because the fatties of the world are exempt from having their unhealthy lifestyle impact their premiums.  Or so I hear.  I haven't bothered to check the veracity because I don't give one single fark, but that's a thing, I suppose.
 
2013-11-01 02:54:45 PM  
"Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. "

Obamacare discriminates against the lazy!
 
2013-11-01 02:55:08 PM  

spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience, but typically the reason people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it or can't afford it. Just because you force them to have it isn't going to resolve the second problem.


By Rand's might pen you're right!

BURN IT ALL DOWN!! BURN IT ALL!!!
 
2013-11-01 02:55:29 PM  

Serious Black: who's thirty+ and completely lacks health issues in here?


Besides vision, I have no other health issues I treat. I have not had any for the better part of a decade that is my 30's.
 
2013-11-01 02:56:10 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Maria Barteromo isn't an intelligent news reporter who delves deep into issues and prepares meticulously for interviews?

Imagine my shock.


Or, you could be nice and say that "there are intelligent reporters who select timely topics, prepare diligently by thoroughly studying their subject and their interviews. None of those reporters are named Maria Barteromo."
 
2013-11-01 02:56:19 PM  

James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.


I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.
 
2013-11-01 02:57:17 PM  

spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.


Based on your vast knowledge of emergency rooms?
 
2013-11-01 02:57:58 PM  

spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.


Because slightly racist anecdotes are much better than actual statistics. Got any more?
 
Bf+
2013-11-01 02:58:05 PM  

James!: Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need

.

Um, that's what insurance is.
 
2013-11-01 02:58:19 PM  

James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.


Just occurred to me -- if he's young and healthy and rarely has to see the doctor, exactly what is his "experience" with emergency rooms?
 
2013-11-01 02:58:35 PM  

Bf+: James!: Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need.

Um, that's what insurance is.


Hey man, I didn't say that shiat.
 
2013-11-01 02:58:54 PM  

spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.


You must have hit "Add Comment" prematurely. I am sure you meant to add:

I base this on the following citation ...
 
2013-11-01 02:58:57 PM  

Two Dogs Farking: I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov.


Why would anyone pay to DDOS a site that has such a horrendous backend none of the pieces work together anyway?
 
2013-11-01 02:59:22 PM  

urbangirl: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

Just occurred to me -- if he's young and healthy and rarely has to see the doctor, exactly what is his "experience" with emergency rooms?


I bet he'll try to convince us he's a doctor.
 
2013-11-01 02:59:42 PM  

spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.


You're saying a notion is false because it doesn't jibe with your personal experience.  You realize this means you'll be roundly criticized, right?
 
2013-11-01 03:01:08 PM  
I just completed Open Enrollment where I work and guess how much my insurance went up..............Zero dollars. Zilch. Nada. I will be paying the same amount this year as I did last year.
/Thanks Obama
//this in no way reflects the rest of the country but I thought I'd share
 
Bf+
2013-11-01 03:01:55 PM  

James!: Bf+: James!: Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need.

Um, that's what insurance is.

Hey man, I didn't say that shiat.



aaaaaand I suck at quoting...
Sorry, dude.
/hides in corner
 
2013-11-01 03:01:58 PM  

ox45tallboy: BeesNuts: Is that seriously the best video you could find?

Yes, I'm on limited bandwidth tethered to my cell, which is currently throttled because I'm over my data limit. If you can find a better one, by all means, post it.


Legendary Oxtallboy, great to see you back! I have unlimited data with Sprint if that helps.
 
2013-11-01 03:02:26 PM  

BeesNuts: Procerus: What is really surprising to me is the inability of the right to find anyone that can backup their claim that the ACA hurt them. I haven't seen a single story I can think of where complaints about increased premiums, policy cancellations, or reduced access to care turned out to be anything other than people who didn't understand, or were intentionally misinformed about the impact of Obamacare on their plan.

Are there any actual cases where someone is explicitly, verifiably, worse off now than they were before Obamacare was passed?

Smokers are kind of getting the shaft which they seem to feel more acutely because the fatties of the world are exempt from having their unhealthy lifestyle impact their premiums.  Or so I hear.  I haven't bothered to check the veracity because I don't give one single fark, but that's a thing, I suppose.


One thing insurance companies are starting to do is subsidize gym memberships and/or provide discounts if you can prove that you are going to a gym. They're wisening up about this too. They aren't charging the fatties more really, they're raising rates on everyone and then letting people who can show they are attempting to lead a healthier lifestyle, pay less.
 
2013-11-01 03:03:18 PM  

BeesNuts: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

You're saying a notion is false because it doesn't jibe with your personal experience.  You realize this means you'll be roundly criticized, right?


No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.
 
2013-11-01 03:05:35 PM  

Two Dogs Farking: I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov.


Paying? Sheeeeit, beltway reporters are doing it for free.
 
2013-11-01 03:06:23 PM  

Bf+: James!: Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need.

Um, that's what insurance is.


Hey, I'm a health nut.  Why do my insurance premiums and medicare payroll taxes have to go towards Lipitor, glucose strips, joint replacements and rascal scooters for the Fatty McFatFats?

Hrmph, no fair.  No one told me life in a greater communal society didn't come ala carte.    Next thing you know, you'll tell me that some of my tax dollars went to funding wars I thought were immoral.
 
2013-11-01 03:06:26 PM  

kidgenius: BeesNuts: Procerus: What is really surprising to me is the inability of the right to find anyone that can backup their claim that the ACA hurt them. I haven't seen a single story I can think of where complaints about increased premiums, policy cancellations, or reduced access to care turned out to be anything other than people who didn't understand, or were intentionally misinformed about the impact of Obamacare on their plan.

Are there any actual cases where someone is explicitly, verifiably, worse off now than they were before Obamacare was passed?

Smokers are kind of getting the shaft which they seem to feel more acutely because the fatties of the world are exempt from having their unhealthy lifestyle impact their premiums.  Or so I hear.  I haven't bothered to check the veracity because I don't give one single fark, but that's a thing, I suppose.

One thing insurance companies are starting to do is subsidize gym memberships and/or provide discounts if you can prove that you are going to a gym. They're wisening up about this too. They aren't charging the fatties more really, they're raising rates on everyone and then letting people who can show they are attempting to lead a healthier lifestyle, pay less.


I think we'll get to some more sensible state in the future.  I was just voicing a complaint I've been hearing from folks.  Apparently smokers can be specifically charged higher premiums, idk if this is true, so correct me if I'm wrong.  That's what annoys them, is that *their* unhealthy behavior is punished because it's politically correct-er than picking on fat people.

Far more unhealthy behavior, IMO, than "being a smoker" is "not having health insurance" and this law handles that pretty equitably, all things considered.
 
2013-11-01 03:06:59 PM  

spman: James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.

There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.


In your casino, when get a blackjack the dealer punches you in the face.  Sometimes the dealer is an 80 pound woman, sometimes a professional heavyweight boxer, and you don't know which is which.

You're telling me that you're not going to put down a 50 cent side bet that saves your from getting punched and buys you a mild slap instead?
 
2013-11-01 03:07:16 PM  

InmanRoshi: Bf+: James!: Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need.

Um, that's what insurance is.

Hey, I'm a health nut.  Why do my insurance premiums and medicare payroll taxes have to go towards Lipitor, glucose strips, joint replacements and rascal scooters for the Fatty McFatFats?

Hrmph, no fair.  No one told me life in a greater communal society didn't come ala carte.    Next thing you know, you'll tell me that some of my tax dollars went to funding wars I thought were immoral.


I don't even use some of these roads, why do I have to pay for all of them?!?!
 
2013-11-01 03:07:51 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


A friend of mine, in that age range, put his foot in a gopher hole he didn't see and tore is ACL.  Without insurance, it would have been a $20,000 surgery and rehab stint.  An emergency room will give you a knee brace and crutches and send you on your way.

That's why you need insurance.
 
2013-11-01 03:08:30 PM  

jst3p: InmanRoshi: Bf+: James!: Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need.

Um, that's what insurance is.

Hey, I'm a health nut.  Why do my insurance premiums and medicare payroll taxes have to go towards Lipitor, glucose strips, joint replacements and rascal scooters for the Fatty McFatFats?

Hrmph, no fair.  No one told me life in a greater communal society didn't come ala carte.    Next thing you know, you'll tell me that some of my tax dollars went to funding wars I thought were immoral.

I don't even use some of these roads, why do I have to pay for all of them?!?!


How about: if you make over 50K you get to use more of them?
 
2013-11-01 03:09:05 PM  

Mikey1969: And there is a certain farker who was claiming ignorance to these stories just an hour ago... I'm sure the slack-jawed yokel isn't here, of course...


let me guess, his handle begins with "Sloth?"
 
2013-11-01 03:09:56 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.


I'd put my tool in her shed. Even at this age
 
2013-11-01 03:10:34 PM  
My family insurance plan premiums are going up an entire 3%. Thanks Bareefer Obonghit, history's greatest monster
 
2013-11-01 03:11:08 PM  

whidbey: jst3p: InmanRoshi: Bf+: James!: Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need.

Um, that's what insurance is.

Hey, I'm a health nut.  Why do my insurance premiums and medicare payroll taxes have to go towards Lipitor, glucose strips, joint replacements and rascal scooters for the Fatty McFatFats?

Hrmph, no fair.  No one told me life in a greater communal society didn't come ala carte.    Next thing you know, you'll tell me that some of my tax dollars went to funding wars I thought were immoral.

I don't even use some of these roads, why do I have to pay for all of them?!?!

How about: if you make over 50K you get to use more of them?


I think if you have a Federal net tax liability (don't receive more in credits and deductions than you pay in) you should get to use the HOV lane even if you are alone.
 
2013-11-01 03:11:40 PM  

BeesNuts:
I think we'll get to some more sensible state in the future.  I was just voicing a complaint I've been hearing from folks.  Apparently smokers can be specifically charged higher premiums, idk if this is true, so correct me if I'm wrong.  That's what annoys them, is that *their* unhealthy behavior is punished because it's politically correct-er than picking on fat people.

Far more unhealthy behavior, IMO, than "being a smoker" is "not having health insurance" and this law handles that pretty equitably, all things considered.


No, you're right about that. There's a checkbox for smoking that will automatically make you pay more. The "fat" thing is right now a little more slyly done with the discounts for people that are attempting to live a healthier lifestyle.
 
2013-11-01 03:12:04 PM  

spman: No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.


Or maybe you either haven't thought what you're saying through or perhaps they're so out of touch with real people's needs you deserve the criticism.

Sorry that liberals irritate you.
 
2013-11-01 03:12:33 PM  

FlashHarry: Mikey1969: And there is a certain farker who was claiming ignorance to these stories just an hour ago... I'm sure the slack-jawed yokel isn't here, of course...

let me guess, his handle begins with "Sloth?"


Actually another one... I left a clue in my post. ;-)
 
2013-11-01 03:12:42 PM  

Dog Welder: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

A friend of mine, in that age range, put his foot in a gopher hole he didn't see and tore is ACL.  Without insurance, it would have been a $20,000 surgery and rehab stint.  An emergency room will give you a knee brace and crutches and send you on your way.

That's why you need insurance.


Yep, without surgery for my Achilles's it would "recover" but with a 3x greater chance of re-injury and I would not be able to participate in some of the things I enjoy doing (basketball, soccer and softball) again.
 
2013-11-01 03:13:04 PM  

Bender The Offender: My family insurance plan premiums are going up an entire 3%. Thanks Bareefer Obonghit, history's greatest monster


Mine's going up almost $130 per year for a family of 4. Less than inflation.

Thanks a lot, Obama.
 
2013-11-01 03:13:27 PM  
Probably a good time to use the obvious tag.
 
2013-11-01 03:13:49 PM  

BeesNuts: kidgenius: BeesNuts: Procerus: What is really surprising to me is the inability of the right to find anyone that can backup their claim that the ACA hurt them. I haven't seen a single story I can think of where complaints about increased premiums, policy cancellations, or reduced access to care turned out to be anything other than people who didn't understand, or were intentionally misinformed about the impact of Obamacare on their plan.

Are there any actual cases where someone is explicitly, verifiably, worse off now than they were before Obamacare was passed?

Smokers are kind of getting the shaft which they seem to feel more acutely because the fatties of the world are exempt from having their unhealthy lifestyle impact their premiums.  Or so I hear.  I haven't bothered to check the veracity because I don't give one single fark, but that's a thing, I suppose.

One thing insurance companies are starting to do is subsidize gym memberships and/or provide discounts if you can prove that you are going to a gym. They're wisening up about this too. They aren't charging the fatties more really, they're raising rates on everyone and then letting people who can show they are attempting to lead a healthier lifestyle, pay less.

I think we'll get to some more sensible state in the future.  I was just voicing a complaint I've been hearing from folks.  Apparently smokers can be specifically charged higher premiums, idk if this is true, so correct me if I'm wrong.  That's what annoys them, is that *their* unhealthy behavior is punished because it's politically correct-er than picking on fat people.

Far more unhealthy behavior, IMO, than "being a smoker" is "not having health insurance" and this law handles that pretty equitably, all things considered.


Yes, it is true. Smoking while not trying cessation therapy of some sort can lead to a 50% increase in your premium. And failure to report smoking can be considered fraud and grounds for recission of your policy.
 
2013-11-01 03:13:50 PM  

whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.


Well if you consider the US has 88 Million people on a combination on either Medicaid or Medicare you already have a single payer system larger than  Canada,France,Germany,Italy andUnited Kingdom.

All you need to do is expand eligibility for those programs gradually.  You will reach a tipping point where everyone will be demanding it.
 
2013-11-01 03:14:09 PM  

Lord_Baull: I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.


shiat even Sebelius seems confused
 
2013-11-01 03:14:10 PM  

jst3p: This. If you aren't insured you are taking the risk of becoming the "taker" that the right wing warns us about.


A black chick with six kids and an SL550 purchased with food stamps?

'cuz that's pretty much what they imagine the takers to be....
 
2013-11-01 03:14:53 PM  

kidgenius: BeesNuts:
I think we'll get to some more sensible state in the future.  I was just voicing a complaint I've been hearing from folks.  Apparently smokers can be specifically charged higher premiums, idk if this is true, so correct me if I'm wrong.  That's what annoys them, is that *their* unhealthy behavior is punished because it's politically correct-er than picking on fat people.

Far more unhealthy behavior, IMO, than "being a smoker" is "not having health insurance" and this law handles that pretty equitably, all things considered.

No, you're right about that. There's a checkbox for smoking that will automatically make you pay more. The "fat" thing is right now a little more slyly done with the discounts for people that are attempting to live a healthier lifestyle.


Smokers who feel particularly victimized by the Smoking penalty should rally together and put pressure on their local state representatives.   States are given the option to opt out of the penalty.
 
2013-11-01 03:16:11 PM  

Procerus: What is really surprising to me is the inability of the right to find anyone that can backup their claim that the ACA hurt them. I haven't seen a single story I can think of where complaints about increased premiums, policy cancellations, or reduced access to care turned out to be anything other than people who didn't understand, or were intentionally misinformed about the impact of Obamacare on their plan.

Are there any actual cases where someone is explicitly, verifiably, worse off now than they were before Obamacare was passed?


There are plenty of people who think they're worse off because they think health insurance works a la carte and think they ought to get a discount on services they aren't personally using right this moment.
 
2013-11-01 03:16:17 PM  

jst3p: Dog Welder: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

A friend of mine, in that age range, put his foot in a gopher hole he didn't see and tore is ACL.  Without insurance, it would have been a $20,000 surgery and rehab stint.  An emergency room will give you a knee brace and crutches and send you on your way.

That's why you need insurance.

Yep, without surgery for my Achilles's it would "recover" but with a 3x greater chance of re-injury and I would not be able to participate in some of the things I enjoy doing (basketball, soccer and softball) again.


I herniated a disc in my back about 4 years ago.  It wasn't life threatening, I was just in excruciating pain.  Without insurance the surgery would have cost $77K.

/Still have permanent nerve damage
//50% sensation on the outer half of my right leg.
 
2013-11-01 03:17:55 PM  

mrshowrules: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

Well if you consider the US has 88 Million people on a combination on either Medicaid or Medicare you already have a single payer system larger than  Canada,France,Germany,Italy andUnited Kingdom.

All you need to do is expand eligibility for those programs gradually.  You will reach a tipping point where everyone will be demanding it.


I sure hope so. I believe that ultimately people hate insurance companies who profit from maladies and long-term health problems much more than these petty wrangles over politics.
 
2013-11-01 03:18:07 PM  
And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us too.

This x 1,000,000
 
2013-11-01 03:18:13 PM  

James!: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

Based on your vast knowledge of emergency rooms?


This is very suspicious. In my experience, the typical emergency room has never contained a perfectly healthy 18-45 year old.
 
2013-11-01 03:18:51 PM  

whidbey: mrshowrules: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

Well if you consider the US has 88 Million people on a combination on either Medicaid or Medicare you already have a single payer system larger than  Canada,France,Germany,Italy andUnited Kingdom.

All you need to do is expand eligibility for those programs gradually.  You will reach a tipping point where everyone will be demanding it.

I sure hope so. I believe that ultimately people hate insurance companies who profit from maladies and long-term health problems much more than these petty wrangles over politics.


Difficulty: Health insurance lobbies own our government.
 
2013-11-01 03:19:18 PM  

sweetmelissa31: James!: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

Based on your vast knowledge of emergency rooms?

This is very suspicious. In my experience, the typical emergency room has never contained a perfectly healthy 18-45 year old.


Two words: liberal plants.
 
2013-11-01 03:19:51 PM  
Since I'm bored at work on a Friday afternoon, I went to healthcare.gov and went through the application process even though I have a decent plan and won't be changing.

1. It took about 15 minutes to get to the point where I could choose a plan.
2. I provided no sensitive personal information, not even SSN.
3. I don't qualify for any subsidy, but could get a gold plan for $377 a month (I'm 53), with a $1750 deductible, $5000 max out of pocket, $5 copays, and $5 generic prescriptions.

Yeah, what a clusterfark.
 
2013-11-01 03:20:06 PM  

spman: BeesNuts: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

You're saying a notion is false because it doesn't jibe with your personal experience.  You realize this means you'll be roundly criticized, right?

No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.


You would be less roundly criticized for claiming a certain statistical make-up of ER visits if you had a source.  Not even bothering was lazy.  Take a look, you were specifically criticized for thinking your "gut feelings" and anecdotes meant something.  Not for what you think, but for why you think it.
 
2013-11-01 03:20:25 PM  
Look, the lady enjoyed getting kicked in the cooch by her insurance company. Why can't Fartbongo 0bummer just let her keep getting c-punted? Why is Osama Poopbama so intent on depriving her of what she wants?

This is America. F*ck Yeah! We'll do what we want!

i359.photobucket.com

/I forgot to take my pills.
 
2013-11-01 03:20:52 PM  
But, but, but I'm an incredibly safe driver! Why am I required to get car insurance!?!?!
 
2013-11-01 03:21:10 PM  

sweetmelissa31: James!: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

Based on your vast knowledge of emergency rooms?

This is very suspicious. In my experience, the typical emergency room has never contained a perfectly healthy 18-45 year old.


How about the staff?
 
2013-11-01 03:22:15 PM  

Kevin72: Legendary Oxtallboy, great to see you back! I have unlimited data with Sprint if that helps.


I'm at my parents' house for the past summer and for the next few months working on building a huge handicapped-accessible addition to their house. AT&T is the only choice I have for service, as Sprint coverage is horrible here, and high-speed is nonexistent.

I'm trying to get my Mom to sign up for Obamacare, but she's a staunch Republican who votes only on abortion, and therefore feels obligated to support their policy positions. On top of that, her extended family is full of Teatards that send her all kinds of FWD: FWD: FW: disinformation, and when I try to counter with actual facts, she accuses me of being "biased". Maybe I am. It's still frustrating when she refuses to look at the actual facts. Oddly enough, the part of Obamacare she most supports is the individual mandate, but she's completely against any form of socialized or single payer medicine. Oddly enough, my disabled Dad is on Medicare, and the only problems he has are related to the supplementary policy and privatized Part D (he just got switched this month to a new provider who won't cover his entire prescription for one set of pills, only half that amount).

/And why does everyone this week keep saying "welcome back"? My 'Recent' page shows 151 posts in the last 30 days, and 869 in the last 180. I haven't went anywhere!
 
2013-11-01 03:22:24 PM  

jst3p: Dog Welder: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

A friend of mine, in that age range, put his foot in a gopher hole he didn't see and tore is ACL.  Without insurance, it would have been a $20,000 surgery and rehab stint.  An emergency room will give you a knee brace and crutches and send you on your way.

That's why you need insurance.

Yep, without surgery for my Achilles's it would "recover" but with a 3x greater chance of re-injury and I would not be able to participate in some of the things I enjoy doing (basketball, soccer and softball) again.


And I can live without my ACL, just as long as I stick to playing video games and not moving quickly to the left. Not really fun in my estimation, so off to surgery I'll go and my insurance will pay for it. If I didn't have insurance, there'd be no way I could get the thing repaired. The fact is that if you have even a marginally active lifestyle, even your '20s should be spent insured. You probably could spend that first decade of adulthood getting fat and not moving without any immediate risk though.
 
2013-11-01 03:22:50 PM  

sweetmelissa31: James!: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

Based on your vast knowledge of emergency rooms?

This is very suspicious. In my experience, the typical emergency room has never contained a perfectly healthy 18-45 year old.


Other than parents taking their kids of course.
 
2013-11-01 03:23:17 PM  

jst3p: whidbey: mrshowrules: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

Well if you consider the US has 88 Million people on a combination on either Medicaid or Medicare you already have a single payer system larger than  Canada,France,Germany,Italy andUnited Kingdom.

All you need to do is expand eligibility for those programs gradually.  You will reach a tipping point where everyone will be demanding it.

I sure hope so. I believe that ultimately people hate insurance companies who profit from maladies and long-term health problems much more than these petty wrangles over politics.

Difficulty: Health insurance lobbies own our government.


Yeah big money does have the biggest influence, but many people are still yet to learn about industrial democracy is, and I have a feeling it's going to become more popular in the next 20 years. If even that long.
 
2013-11-01 03:23:17 PM  

lockers: sweetmelissa31: James!: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

Based on your vast knowledge of emergency rooms?

This is very suspicious. In my experience, the typical emergency room has never contained a perfectly healthy 18-45 year old.

How about the staff?


That's what he said
 
2013-11-01 03:24:19 PM  

ox45tallboy: /And why does everyone this week keep saying "welcome back"? My 'Recent' page shows 151 posts in the last 30 days, and 869 in the last 180. I haven't went anywhere!


We just missed you, sheesh. No farking gratitude around here.
 
2013-11-01 03:24:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.

shiat even Sebelius seems confused


Of course, she was stupid/crazy enough to be elected as Governor of Kansas for shiat's sake.
 
2013-11-01 03:25:03 PM  

BeesNuts: On the other side of things, this law benefits your 18-26 year olds by letting them stay on their parents plans.

So we're talking about healthy 27 to 45 year olds.  Who "don't need or want insurance".


Just be aware that there are 18 - 26 year olds who don't have the option of getting on the parents' plans.  I'm helping a couple of them negotiate the exchange so they can get some kind of insurance (even if it's expanded medicaid).  They both come from dysfunctional families where help from their parents is nonexistent.  There are kids out there who have been tossed out by their parents (or who walked away from abusive ones) who are going to be able to be helped.  I'm on a mini crusade trying to get kids like this that I know to get signed up.  Came from the experience of helping out one eighteen year old with a $3000 medical bill after she ended up in the ER for a burst ovarian cyst.  Everyone always talks about people walking away from medical bills but there are a lot who try and do the right thing and pay them, even though they are working low wage jobs and barely scraping by.
 
2013-11-01 03:25:35 PM  

spman: If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place?


Because you will (probably) some day fall outside of the 18-45 age range, your odds of remaining totally healthy are low, nobody is at zero risk for hereditary illness and how often you get communicable diseases - unless you're spending your weekends sharing dirty needles and banging random strangers through truck stop glory holes - has very little to do with actuarial tables.

Your very first contribution to this thread was a fundamental misunderstanding of how health insurance and healthcare consumption work, you've done nothing but double-down on your demonstrably false view of the situation and yet you have the gall to claim that the reason you're being criticized is that Fark is liberal?

You're being criticized because you are choosing to be wrong despite overwhelming evidence presented to of your error. You seem to have confused objective reality with political affiliation. Perhaps you should reconsider your staunch determination in the face of facts and consider instead accepting and assimilating them so that in the future the opinions you form can be based upon arguable grounds?
A good way to avoid criticism, after all, is to not be wrong on purpose.
 
2013-11-01 03:25:44 PM  

BeesNuts: spman: BeesNuts: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

You're saying a notion is false because it doesn't jibe with your personal experience.  You realize this means you'll be roundly criticized, right?

No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.

You would be less roundly criticized for claiming a certain statistical make-up of ER visits if you had a source.  Not even bothering was lazy.  Take a look, you were specifically criticized for thinking your "gut feelings" and anecdotes meant something.  Not for what you think, but for why you think it.


Not only that, but his anecdotal evidence requires him to have been to an emergency room, which would contradict his claim.
 
2013-11-01 03:25:57 PM  
I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.
 
2013-11-01 03:26:21 PM  

whidbey: mrshowrules: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

Well if you consider the US has 88 Million people on a combination on either Medicaid or Medicare you already have a single payer system larger than  Canada,France,Germany,Italy andUnited Kingdom.

All you need to do is expand eligibility for those programs gradually.  You will reach a tipping point where everyone will be demanding it.

I sure hope so. I believe that ultimately people hate insurance companies who profit from maladies and long-term health problems much more than these petty wrangles over politics.


When a tornado hits a town, you have police, fire, rescuers, emergency support all paid by taxes, showing up and helping people.  Someone is stuck in a tree with a stop sign jammed up his ass and then all becomes about the guy's health care insurance and who's going to pay.

It just doesn't make sense.  Capitalism is not a good tool for commodities/services with an inelastic demand.  Ironically, those who actually understand capitalism know this and know that the private health care insurance system are an abomination of capitalism.   You know capitalism works when it drives down cost and improves choice, if it doesn't, you know it was the wrong tool for the job.   Just as dumb as having insurance for police and fire services if not dumber when you consider epidemiological health issues which are a greater threat than invading countries and terrorism.

So painfully obvious to so many of us.  Not understanding this is really a good litmus test to people's critical thinking skills in general.
 
2013-11-01 03:27:09 PM  
Hello everyone.

As per the pie chart being listed in every thread like this, a majority of people are not affected by this law at all.

So ask yourself, are you doing what you love in a job/career? If not, maybe get a job with benefits until you find that dream job.

While my gf jumps between jobs, we'll be on the exchange next month getting her a plan. And she'll qualify for under $100 a month after subsidies.

It's not a big deal. Then again, we're on Fark and we know it's not a big deal.
 
2013-11-01 03:27:24 PM  
It so damn good they had to mandate it.

And most families are saving that $2,500.00 per year right? Or was that the plan you loved that is being canceled?

My gay nephew was pissed until he found out he gets free pap smears and cervical exams and His mom get prenatal!   And some of you people were skeptics and said she wouldn't qualify because she was over 55.

Me?  I'm get to pay 8% more to keep my Cadillac plan,... for now, good times.

$ Paying more
 
2013-11-01 03:28:04 PM  

lockers: How about the staff?


They stay out of there. They don't want to get sick, because they're not insured.
 
2013-11-01 03:28:04 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: BeesNuts: spman: BeesNuts: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

You're saying a notion is false because it doesn't jibe with your personal experience.  You realize this means you'll be roundly criticized, right?

No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.

You would be less roundly criticized for claiming a certain statistical make-up of ER visits if you had a source.  Not even bothering was lazy.  Take a look, you were specifically criticized for thinking your "gut feelings" and anecdotes meant something.  Not for what you think, but for why you think it.

Not only that, but his anecdotal evidence requires him to have been to an emergency room, which would contradict his claim.


Many people confuse "how it actually is" with "how it has to be in my imagination in order to back my argument".

Sounds like he is one of them.
 
2013-11-01 03:28:32 PM  
Meanwhile, here in Washington State, I quickly browsed the state exchange site this morning and compared a bunch of plans to see if any of them beat my work plan (my company has 12 employees in the US, so we get shafted on group plans).

The prices were actually pretty competitive, but none of them had dental, which is what I really need covered. I had two teeth suffer resorbtion this yeah, so I had to drop $6000 out of pocket to get them extracted and implants put in. I've still got another $2000 or so to go next year when I get the implants capped.
 
2013-11-01 03:28:58 PM  

busy chillin': BeesNuts: Lord_Baull: I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.

1) Deliberately misinform the public about the ACA.
2) Bring people you misinformed onto your network to describe their dissatisfaction with the ACA as they understand it.
3) Act shocked when these people are misinformed about the ACA.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]
It's the circle of life


editorial.designtaxi.com
 
2013-11-01 03:29:12 PM  

Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.


Surely this will cost him his re-election.
 
2013-11-01 03:29:31 PM  

mrshowrules: [pinstripebindi.files.wordpress.com image 275x206]


Mrshow...made my Friday
//going home chuckling now
 
2013-11-01 03:29:39 PM  

Tyee: $ Paying more


Dude, you need to stop this bullshiat.

You're not some rebel with a cause, you are embarrassing yourself.
 
2013-11-01 03:29:57 PM  

ox45tallboy: Kevin72: Legendary Oxtallboy, great to see you back! I have unlimited data with Sprint if that helps.

I'm at my parents' house for the past summer and for the next few months working on building a huge handicapped-accessible addition to their house. AT&T is the only choice I have for service, as Sprint coverage is horrible here, and high-speed is nonexistent.

I'm trying to get my Mom to sign up for Obamacare, but she's a staunch Republican who votes only on abortion, and therefore feels obligated to support their policy positions. On top of that, her extended family is full of Teatards that send her all kinds of FWD: FWD: FW: disinformation, and when I try to counter with actual facts, she accuses me of being "biased". Maybe I am. It's still frustrating when she refuses to look at the actual facts. Oddly enough, the part of Obamacare she most supports is the individual mandate, but she's completely against any form of socialized or single payer medicine. Oddly enough, my disabled Dad is on Medicare, and the only problems he has are related to the supplementary policy and privatized Part D (he just got switched this month to a new provider who won't cover his entire prescription for one set of pills, only half that amount).


I feel like your conversations with your mom are much like those I have with my mom. She watches Fox News every day and is perpetually misinformed because of that. Every time we have any discussion revolving around politics, I feel like I'm just barely able to crack open the door and get her to see beyond the walls of their media empire, but then I leave or she goes back home, and it's right back to square one with her slamming the door shut.

Good luck with convincing your mom to get insured. I hope that she doesn't leave that plan on the table or that said decision comes back to bite her in the ass later.
 
2013-11-01 03:30:32 PM  

BiblioTech: BeesNuts: On the other side of things, this law benefits your 18-26 year olds by letting them stay on their parents plans.

So we're talking about healthy 27 to 45 year olds.  Who "don't need or want insurance".

Just be aware that there are 18 - 26 year olds who don't have the option of getting on the parents' plans.  I'm helping a couple of them negotiate the exchange so they can get some kind of insurance (even if it's expanded medicaid).  They both come from dysfunctional families where help from their parents is nonexistent.  There are kids out there who have been tossed out by their parents (or who walked away from abusive ones) who are going to be able to be helped.  I'm on a mini crusade trying to get kids like this that I know to get signed up.  Came from the experience of helping out one eighteen year old with a $3000 medical bill after she ended up in the ER for a burst ovarian cyst.  Everyone always talks about people walking away from medical bills but there are a lot who try and do the right thing and pay them, even though they are working low wage jobs and barely scraping by.


This is worthwhile.  high five.
 
2013-11-01 03:30:40 PM  

Tyee: It so damn good they had to mandate it.

And most families are saving that $2,500.00 per year right? Or was that the plan you loved that is being canceled?

My gay nephew was pissed until he found out he gets free pap smears and cervical exams and His mom get prenatal!   And some of you people were skeptics and said she wouldn't qualify because she was over 55.

Me?  I'm get to pay 8% more to keep my Cadillac plan,... for now, good times.

$ Paying more


Here is a cervical exam for you...Yep, that's sand.
 
2013-11-01 03:30:51 PM  

spman: No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.


If you go some place, and you find a few assholes, you just found a few assholes is all.

If you go some place and everyone is an asshole, it's more likely that you are the asshole.
 
2013-11-01 03:31:01 PM  
I'm on my wife's plan because it's cheap and I'm her biatch. We pay about $250 a month for the three of us. Suck on that, Exchangers!
 
2013-11-01 03:31:14 PM  

Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.


What it boils down to is "Who gives a shiat?" Does the fact that he lied or misled have any bearing on whether or not most people will see no change or premium decreases as a result of Obamacare? Does anyone really give a shiat if Obama put in a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down? Even if you accept the premise that he lied outright, what does that even mean at this point in time? Would Republicans go back in time in order to vote in an even more obstructionist minority party if they knew that 3% of people would have their insurance companies cancel their policies?

Get up on the highest mountain you can, yell to the world that Obama is a liar. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
 
2013-11-01 03:31:35 PM  

Tyee: [unsupported claims]


Post your provider, current health plan, nearest similar plan, average rate increases for like-size groups or individuals (depending on what your plan is), current premium, premium of the next closest plan, state, age and income so that all this can be validated with facts, please.

Otherwise, your claims are rejected out of hand since you posted no evidence that validates any part of them.
 
2013-11-01 03:32:28 PM  

Duke Slater: Since I'm bored at work on a Friday afternoon, I went to healthcare.gov and went through the application process even though I have a decent plan and won't be changing.

1. It took about 15 minutes to get to the point where I could choose a plan.
2. I provided no sensitive personal information, not even SSN.
3. I don't qualify for any subsidy, but could get a gold plan for $377 a month (I'm 53), with a $1750 deductible, $5000 max out of pocket, $5 copays, and $5 generic prescriptions.

Yeah, what a clusterfark.


Dude, I know a chick that went on the web-site and this is how the found her:

www.demontheory.net
 
2013-11-01 03:33:01 PM  

spman: BeesNuts: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

You're saying a notion is false because it doesn't jibe with your personal experience.  You realize this means you'll be roundly criticized, right?

No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.


I will criticize you squarely, just to defy your expectations.
On a serious note, most hospitals have staff in the ER and in the business/administration office specifically to deal with the uninsured. They have policies in place to help the uninsured pay their bills, seek additional medical assistance as well as policies designed to ensure collection of debt, etc.
Since for profit hospitals don't admit uninsured patients, they must be coming in through the E.R. If that weren't the case, what need would there be for staff and policies specifically designed to address the issue of the uninsured?

/and yes, I know that some of that staff and some of those policies are for the insured who haven't met deductibles and co-pays, etc.
 
2013-11-01 03:34:21 PM  
i went on the exchanges and the only thing obamacare would give me is a $700/month premium (after the subsidy) and the only coverage it offered was a handbra
 
2013-11-01 03:34:26 PM  

jst3p: Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.

Surely this will cost him his re-election.


I don't see that happening. Obama's standing in the next election has already been decided by those in power. :)
 
2013-11-01 03:35:02 PM  
mrshowrules:

Dude, I know a chick that went on the web-site and this is how the found her:

[messedupfacefromthering.jpg]


10/10! Would el oh el again.
 
2013-11-01 03:35:26 PM  

skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.

I'd put my tool in her shed. Even at this age


Don't get me wrong, I'd love to wreck her shed.  She just doesn't deserve to be called a reporter.
 
2013-11-01 03:36:01 PM  

Whodat: jst3p: Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.

Surely this will cost him his re-election.

I don't see that happening. Obama's standing in the next election has already been decided by those in power. :)


Actually the people are going to overwhelmingly elect another Democrat because they support what they're doing and the Republicans are acting like spoiled children with no plan for the future.

I'm sure that's what you meant by that.
 
2013-11-01 03:36:02 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


How many of those people do you think have accidents?  Hardly any?  Do you think they're immune to broken bones or car accidents?
 
2013-11-01 03:36:11 PM  

Triple Oak: While my gf jumps between jobs, we'll be on the exchange next month getting her a plan. And she'll qualify for under $100 a month after subsidies.


Do you have insurance at work?  Why don't you put her on your plan?

/If don't want to get married, call her a "domestic partner".
 
2013-11-01 03:36:37 PM  

skullkrusher: I'm on my wife's plan because it's cheap and I'm her biatch. We pay about $250 a month for the three of us. Suck on that, Exchangers!


good luck.  employer mandate kicks in next year.  i'm just sayin'
 
2013-11-01 03:36:37 PM  
I'm pretty sure my insurance under ACA is going to end up costing more but my current policy is crap with a $10,000 deductible that's really only good for a catastrophic health event. I doubt it even meets the criteria of the bronze level plans in ACA. Last year when I went policy shopping there was a HUGE price gap between policies like it and the ones usable for anything other than losing a leg in a tragic tilt-a-whirl accident. From what I've seen so far, the plans that meet ACA criteria have a much more even gradient of prices and benefits. I don't mind paying more if I'm going to get a group rate rather than the "haha, you're an individual buying insurance, here's your free prostate exam." type rate. Some of the plans were twice as expensive as being on cobra even though they offered half as much.
 
2013-11-01 03:36:52 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


This is like asking if someone who doesn't have kids should be forced to pay taxes that go to the school system.

Society, us, common good, civilization, better for everybody, etc.
 
2013-11-01 03:37:20 PM  

AeAe: How many of those people do you think have accidents? Hardly any?


Does diabetes count as an 'accident'?
 
2013-11-01 03:37:27 PM  

sprawl15: i went on the exchanges and the only thing obamacare would give me is a $700/month premium (after the subsidy) and the only coverage it offered was a handbra


the ACA website drank the last beer in my fridge
 
2013-11-01 03:38:12 PM  

spman: You talk about Republicans trying to wipe out the middle class by making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what do you think this is? You think the person working three minimum wage jobs just to keep food in their mouth and a roof over their head can afford to pay anything extra a month for insurance? You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?


No.

Which is why the former case is either heavily subsidized or eligible for Medicaid (if she doesn't live in a state run by shiatheads, anyway) and probably exempt from any PPACA penalties besides, and the latter would get moderate subsidization as well.
 
2013-11-01 03:38:21 PM  

whidbey: Whodat: jst3p: Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.

Surely this will cost him his re-election.

I don't see that happening. Obama's standing in the next election has already been decided by those in power. :)

Actually the people are going to overwhelmingly elect another Democrat because they support what they're doing and the Republicans are acting like spoiled children with no plan for the future.

I'm sure that's what you meant by that.


I have a hard time seeing a path that elects a Republican. They have a lot of damage control to do and their last couple choices of candidates were really not viable from day one. I am sure they have smarter minds than mine working on it so I am looking forward to seeing where they go from here, but they have a lot of warts to deal with.
 
2013-11-01 03:38:41 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.

I'd put my tool in her shed. Even at this age

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to wreck her shed.  She just doesn't deserve to be called a reporter.


It's long been rumored that she spent as much time on her knees with financial leaders as she did interviewing them
 
2013-11-01 03:38:53 PM  

Duke Slater: Yeah, what a clusterfark.


Actually, that website is legitimately a mess. The reason the bits you tried work is because they unwound a lot of the intervening steps like account creation and credit reporting so that people could get straight to the info without having to go through a considerable portion of the sign up process. The actual process of creating an account and enrolling in a plan is still having a LOT of problems.

That said, we're talking about a web site created to support a law that was actively under attack by half the government that was funding it and has to support a large number of states that didn't create their own exchanges simply out of spite. How much of it is because of poor design and testing and how much of it is because of asshole conservatives actively trying to damage it I don't know, but it definitely does have problems, regardless.
 
2013-11-01 03:39:43 PM  

EngineerAU: Last year when I went policy shopping there was a HUGE price gap between policies like it and the ones usable for anything other than losing a leg in a tragic tilt-a-whirl accident.


And keep in mind, one of the things Obamacare got rid of was the common act of rescission, where you are not only suddenly dumped from your coverage, but you are responsible for all the costs incurred prior to being dumped.
 
2013-11-01 03:39:52 PM  
This is why we need socialized medicine. Most people are too stupid to make informed decisions for themselves on things like this, and insurance companies know it.
 
2013-11-01 03:39:57 PM  

colon_pow: skullkrusher: I'm on my wife's plan because it's cheap and I'm her biatch. We pay about $250 a month for the three of us. Suck on that, Exchangers!

good luck.  employer mandate kicks in next year.  i'm just sayin'


Meh not a concern
 
2013-11-01 03:40:21 PM  

mrshowrules: Duke Slater: Since I'm bored at work on a Friday afternoon, I went to healthcare.gov and went through the application process even though I have a decent plan and won't be changing.

1. It took about 15 minutes to get to the point where I could choose a plan.
2. I provided no sensitive personal information, not even SSN.
3. I don't qualify for any subsidy, but could get a gold plan for $377 a month (I'm 53), with a $1750 deductible, $5000 max out of pocket, $5 copays, and $5 generic prescriptions.

Yeah, what a clusterfark.

Dude, I know a chick that went on the web-site and this is how the found her:

[www.demontheory.net image 400x300]


In seven days your inferior catastrophic plan will die.
 
2013-11-01 03:40:43 PM  

skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.

I'd put my tool in her shed. Even at this age

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to wreck her shed.  She just doesn't deserve to be called a reporter.

It's long been rumored that she spent as much time on her knees with financial leaders as she did interviewing them


do they just like sushi or what
 
2013-11-01 03:41:49 PM  

InmanRoshi: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x617]


In all fairness, I've known enough people that have had the "lost their current plan, equivalent exchange plan costs more" problem that I'm pretty sure I can just call bullshiat on that chart's prediction entirely, I've moved beyond the realm of this really being anecdotal at this point.

That said, the woman is certainly exaggerating the problem, what I've been seeing is a lot of people getting stuck with like 5 or 10% increases, which is grumble-worthy, or having employer coverage dropped without a corresponding increase in pay, which is more a dick move from their employer than the government's fault as such even though it's a real problem.
 
2013-11-01 03:42:57 PM  

gilgigamesh: Cagey B: I can't wait for the anti-ACA shills to come in and start white-knighting her

I wouldn't hold my breath. They tend to stay away from these threads.


Prove to me that her new available plans will cover strokes, heart attacks, and cancer.

I won't believe it until you prove it, and another farker insisted that four of his friends bought plans through the mandatory exchange that won't cover those problems.
 
2013-11-01 03:43:23 PM  

skozlaw: Tyee: [unsupported claims]

Post your provider, current health plan, nearest similar plan, average rate increases for like-size groups or individuals (depending on what your plan is), current premium, premium of the next closest plan, state, age and income so that all this can be validated with facts, please.

Otherwise, your claims are rejected out of hand since you posted no evidence that validates any part of them.


Here's my info just for shiats and giggles (numbers quoted are in network).

Current Insurance: GEHA Standard Option. $350 deductible, $5,000 OOP cap, 15% coinsurance after deductible met. I also have $10 generic prescription drugs, 50% brand-name drugs, $10 PCP visits, and $25 specialist visits that do not count against the deductible or OOP cap. The premium is $104 a month to me and $312 to my employer for a total of $416 a month. The premium has increased about 45% since 2005 ($289 a month at that time).

Insurance through Exchange: BCBSKS BlueCare Deluxe Choice. No deductible, $2,500 OOP cap, 50% coinsurance. The premium is $283 a month. I could also go with the Elite plan for a $1,150 OOP cap and pay $324 a month. No clue what the average premium increase is like with them.

If I could take my direct employer contribution with me to the exchanges, I would do so in a heartbeat. I can more than afford 50% coinsurances, especially if I would be saving $1,200-1,600 a year on my premium.
 
2013-11-01 03:44:02 PM  
Here's about the worst case scenario I can envision. Muhself. I'm a 30 year old who gets insurance through his employer and doesn't qualify for subsidies, but let's say my employer decided to not offer coverage.

Right now I could get a $1,000 deductible policy from BCBS with pretty good coverage for everything for ~$150/month. A silver policy from BCBS with a $2,500 deductible with comparable coverage would now cost me $230/month. So my rates would go up about $80 a month, or about $1,000 a year, and I would have a higher deductible, though it would likely apply to a narrower range of services.

Of course, the ACA also aims to expand employer provided coverage, so those who make too much to qualify for subsidies are very likely to already get coverage through their employer.

But, yes, I could see healthy 30somethings who make too much to qualify for a subsidy see their rates go up by as much as 30%. That's basically the only demographic I see that may be worse off under the ACA.
 
2013-11-01 03:44:11 PM  
skozlaw:..... current premium, premium of the next closest plan, state, age and income so that all this can be validated with facts, please.

So you want transparency and numbers from a private person, posted on the interwebs, ...is that because you can't get info from your government... b/c that won't release its numbers information on sign ups?

You find an 8% increase in a Cadillac plan difficult to believe or understand?  Really? That increase to Cadillac plans is about the only thing Obama promised that is happening as promised.

I need a drink.  On to happy hour.  First round is on me, just like your health care.

$ more.
 
2013-11-01 03:44:12 PM  

skullkrusher: sprawl15: i went on the exchanges and the only thing obamacare would give me is a $700/month premium (after the subsidy) and the only coverage it offered was a handbra

the ACA website drank the last beer in my fridge


It can do that? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!?!
 
2013-11-01 03:46:38 PM  

skullkrusher: sprawl15: i went on the exchanges and the only thing obamacare would give me is a $700/month premium (after the subsidy) and the only coverage it offered was a handbra

the ACA website drank the last beer in my fridge


Healthcare.gov siphoned the gas out of my car!
 
2013-11-01 03:47:07 PM  

sprawl15: skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.

I'd put my tool in her shed. Even at this age

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to wreck her shed.  She just doesn't deserve to be called a reporter.

It's long been rumored that she spent as much time on her knees with financial leaders as she did interviewing them

do they just like sushi or what


Fawning
 
2013-11-01 03:47:08 PM  

skozlaw: How much of it is because of poor design and testing


It's mostly poor design and testing.  It was moronic to have two different contractors working on the site.  It was further stupid to have traditional government contractors work on it rather than a company who actually has experience with high volume, high complexity web applications.

If the government were more flexible, they could have hired a retired big gun from some company like Yahoo or Google to pull together an engineering team.  They probably could have done it for $10-20 million and in half the time.

Heck, I think Drew could have done it for a case of Maker's Mark.
 
2013-11-01 03:48:25 PM  

Tyee: You find an 8% increase in a Cadillac plan difficult to believe or understand?  Really? That increase to Cadillac plans is about the only thing Obama promised that is happening as promised.


Safe money says this guy heard the term "cadillac plan" and suddenly on the internet he has a cadillac healthcare plan.
 
2013-11-01 03:48:45 PM  

Tyee: $ more.


Dude put a farking sock in it.

You are totally unable to get your ideas across and have solidly crossed into trolling.

You are pathetic. You're gone from here as far as I'm concerned. You have become nothing more than pure point and laugh failure.
 
2013-11-01 03:49:55 PM  

jst3p: Serious Black: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

You won't fall within that 18-45 range and be totally healthy forever. Either you'll get hit by a bus or develop cancer while still in that age range and spend a ton of money treating those things, or you'll grow old and THEN get hit by a bus or develop cancer and spend a ton of money treating those things.

Hell, that description fits me to a tee. I rarely go to the doctor or get sick.

My Achilles's snapped this year requiring surgery, without insurance I would have been fooked. Life happens kid.


It only a $20,000 surgery and several thousand more in rehabilitation and care. People can't pull $30k in cash without relying on insurance?
 
2013-11-01 03:50:21 PM  
Coming soon on Lifetime.....

www.theminorityreportblog.com
 
Bf+
2013-11-01 03:51:16 PM  

skullkrusher: sprawl15: i went on the exchanges and the only thing obamacare would give me is a $700/month premium (after the subsidy) and the only coverage it offered was a handbra

the ACA website drank the last beer in my fridge


The ACA website spoiled Breaking Bad for me.
 
2013-11-01 03:51:56 PM  

jst3p: whidbey: Whodat: jst3p: Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.

Surely this will cost him his re-election.

I don't see that happening. Obama's standing in the next election has already been decided by those in power. :)

Actually the people are going to overwhelmingly elect another Democrat because they support what they're doing and the Republicans are acting like spoiled children with no plan for the future.

I'm sure that's what you meant by that.

I have a hard time seeing a path that elects a Republican. They have a lot of damage control to do and their last couple choices of candidates were really not viable from day one. I am sure they have smarter minds than mine working on it so I am looking forward to seeing where they go from here, but they have a lot of warts to deal with.


I could see them running Christie as a moderate, but he's still a homophobic wannabe people's hero.

All anyone would have to do is watch his speech endorsing Romney at the RNC if you want to see what a worthless suckup he is, but I'm pretty sure that moment is already forgotten. I sure as fark wouldn't vote for him.
 
2013-11-01 03:52:08 PM  
I went on the ACA website just to look around, and the ACA website took all my Halloween candy.


Thanks Obama!
 
2013-11-01 03:52:14 PM  
www.trbimg.com

What is the picture about?
 
2013-11-01 03:52:57 PM  

haemaker: skozlaw: How much of it is because of poor design and testing

It's mostly poor design and testing.  It was moronic to have two different contractors working on the site.  It was further stupid to have traditional government contractors work on it rather than a company who actually has experience with high volume, high complexity web applications.

If the government were more flexible, they could have hired a retired big gun from some company like Yahoo or Google to pull together an engineering team.  They probably could have done it for $10-20 million and in half the time.

Heck, I think Drew could have done it for a case of Maker's Mark.


The "Smart" "Funny" buttons would be a hoot.
 
2013-11-01 03:53:29 PM  

Headso: Safe money says this guy heard the term "cadillac plan" and suddenly on the internet he has a cadillac healthcare plan.


I'm an old guy, that term has been around for a long time and used for many things before this issue.  Obama himself used it when he was making up b/s promises.  To be fair he did say the Cadillac plans may see in increase.

Beer?
 
2013-11-01 03:54:20 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: [www.trbimg.com image 600x415]

What is the picture about?


how the secretary of the HHS is stating, in publicly funded advertising, that you are exempt from the individual mandate if you can kegstand
 
2013-11-01 03:54:30 PM  

Jim_Callahan: 've been seeing is a lot of people getting stuck with like 5 or 10% increases


I've been seeing 5-10% increases on my premiums through my employerplan on a prettyregular basis, going back to before Obama was even elected. Unless you have a really good employer plan, you've been getting nailed for a long time.
 
2013-11-01 03:54:43 PM  

Serious Black: If I could take my direct employer contribution with me to the exchanges, I would do so in a heartbeat. I can more than afford 50% coinsurances, especially if I would be saving $1,200-1,600 a year on my premium.


Actually, depending on your circumstances, your employer and you might get some additional big benefits starting next year. Age banding will still occur (so if your premiums are jumping because you employ a bunch of old people that will continue), but if the reason was that you have a large number of young, female employees and your company is relatively small, you might see some big benefits when that kicks.

Tyee: [unsupported claims]


Your claims are unverifiable. There is little recourse but to assume you are either lying outright or by omission. I'll color your posts appropriately so I don't mistake you as somebody honest in the future. Good day.
 
2013-11-01 03:55:23 PM  

skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: skullkrusher: Marcus Aurelius: And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down

Maria Bartiromo is a complete tool.

I'd put my tool in her shed. Even at this age

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to wreck her shed.  She just doesn't deserve to be called a reporter.

It's long been rumored that she spent as much time on her knees with financial leaders as she did interviewing them


I did not know she was religious. She should pray in private.
 
2013-11-01 03:55:24 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: [www.trbimg.com image 600x415]

What is the picture about?


It's an ad some state exchange was running to encourage bros to sign up for "brosurance."
 
2013-11-01 03:55:35 PM  

whidbey: jst3p: whidbey: Whodat: jst3p: Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.

Surely this will cost him his re-election.

I don't see that happening. Obama's standing in the next election has already been decided by those in power. :)

Actually the people are going to overwhelmingly elect another Democrat because they support what they're doing and the Republicans are acting like spoiled children with no plan for the future.

I'm sure that's what you meant by that.

I have a hard time seeing a path that elects a Republican. They have a lot of damage control to do and their last couple choices of candidates were really not viable from day one. I am sure they have smarter minds than mine working on it so I am looking forward to seeing where they go from here, but they have a lot of warts to deal with.

I could see them running Christie as a moderate, but he's still a homophobic wannabe people's hero.

All anyone would have to do is watch his speech endorsing Romney at the RNC if you want to see what a worthless suckup he is, but I'm pretty sure that moment is already forgotten. I sure as fark wouldn't vote for him.


The problem with Christie is that it keeps the base that didn't think Romney or McCain was conservative enough from coming out to vote.

The election is a long way away, but I don't see Christie beating anyone that the Dems are talking about running.
 
2013-11-01 03:57:14 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: [www.trbimg.com image 600x415]

What is the picture about?


That's begging for a photoshop / meme for it.
 
2013-11-01 03:57:40 PM  

skullkrusher: It's long been rumored that she spent as much time on her knees with financial leaders as she did interviewing them


A Citicorp exec (Todd Thompson) got fired for jetting her around, if you know what I mean.
 
2013-11-01 03:59:37 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


I should introduce you to my friend.  He had a stroke at 26 due to MS.  He's blind in one eye and walks with a cane.  And that's on his good days.

Go get some god damn insurance.
 
2013-11-01 03:59:48 PM  

skozlaw: Your claims are unverifiable. There is little recourse but to assume you are either lying outright or by omission. I'll color your posts appropriately so I don't mistake you as somebody honest in the future. Good day.


This is Tyee we are talking about. The guy who actively cheered on the Somali pirates because he hates Obama so much.
 
2013-11-01 04:00:20 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Coming soon on Lifetime.....

[www.theminorityreportblog.com image 702x339]


Don't knock it, the providers are pretty hot:

ate.allthatsepic.netdna-cdn.com

blog.zap2it.com

So long as you appreciate Stevie Nicks, the health care services aren't bad.
 
2013-11-01 04:00:46 PM  
FTFA:
Cavallaro told me a couple of things that are worth considering. First, what she likes about her current plan is that she can go to any doctor of her choice and any hospital. That's not entirely true, because her current plan with Anthem does favor a network. Plainly, however, it's broad enough to serve her purposes. She's concerned that the new plans will offer smaller networks, which is probably true, though it's not necessarily true that the new networks will exclude her favorite doctors, hospitals or prescription formularies.

She also mentioned that her annual income fluctuates. It can be substantially lower, or substantially higher, than it is this year. What if next year she earns too much to qualify for the subsidy? Also a fair point -- at her current income, the subsidy is worth more than $200 a month to her. But that's not the same as saying that "there's nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act," because at her current income, the act is vastly more affordable to her than what she's paying now.

 
TFA does a nice job of glossing issues that seem to be important to this person.

She's definitely a farktard for not having done her homework. But speaking as someone whose plan (that includes dental and vision) is being discontinued, and the cheapest ACA for which I qualify is $43 more per month  without dental and vision, I can understand the frustration.
 
2013-11-01 04:00:56 PM  

skozlaw: Serious Black: If I could take my direct employer contribution with me to the exchanges, I would do so in a heartbeat. I can more than afford 50% coinsurances, especially if I would be saving $1,200-1,600 a year on my premium.

Actually, depending on your circumstances, your employer and you might get some additional big benefits starting next year. Age banding will still occur (so if your premiums are jumping because you employ a bunch of old people that will continue), but if the reason was that you have a large number of young, female employees and your company is relatively small, you might see some big benefits when that kicks.


As I've noted here in the past (and I thought was a bit obvious from who my insurer is), I work for Uncle Sam. My insurance going into next year is not changing substantially from what it was when I started my job four years ago. All plans on the FEHBP met or exceeded the minimum essential benefits package back then, and the program also had guaranteed issue rules at the time. The one big benefit change I can recall is a drastic increase in the smoking cessation benefit, but that hit in 2011.
 
2013-11-01 04:01:20 PM  

whidbey: You're gone from here as far as I'm concerned.


I have long since lost much interest in what concerns you.  Your idealism aside, you can sometimes show signs of comprehension, unfortunately as you blindly march along into oblivion you're taking us with you.  Go if you must but don't bring us with you.

$
 
2013-11-01 04:01:31 PM  
Clearly, the Obama junta has conspired with the private market to offer this woman insurance.

You have no idea how deep the conspiracy goes.
 
2013-11-01 04:01:36 PM  

Tyee: skozlaw:..... current premium, premium of the next closest plan, state, age and income so that all this can be validated with facts, please.

So you want transparency and numbers from a private person, posted on the interwebs, ...is that because you can't get info from your government... b/c that won't release its numbers information on sign ups?

You find an 8% increase in a Cadillac plan difficult to believe or understand?  Really? That increase to Cadillac plans is about the only thing Obama promised that is happening as promised.

I need a drink.  On to happy hour.  First round is on me, just like your health care.

$ more.


Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.  Your plan is really that good?  What Obama promised was a tax on Cadillac plans to discourage their use, since its well established that such plans tend to drive up medical cost inflation.

That tax doesn't start until 2018.

So in what way is your plan increase out of the ordinary from prior year to year increases?  What leads you to believe it's exclusively the fault of the ACA?
 
2013-11-01 04:02:53 PM  

PanicMan: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

I should introduce you to my friend.  He had a stroke at 26 due to MS.  He's blind in one eye and walks with a cane.  And that's on his good days.

Go get some god damn insurance.


This is why I avoid buying MS products whenever I can.

/LINUX for life!
 
2013-11-01 04:02:55 PM  
s7.postimg.org
 
2013-11-01 04:03:00 PM  

Tyee: skozlaw:..... current premium, premium of the next closest plan, state, age and income so that all this can be validated with facts, please.

So you want transparency and numbers from a private person, posted on the interwebs, ...is that because you can't get info from your government... b/c that won't release its numbers information on sign ups?

You find an 8% increase in a Cadillac plan difficult to believe or understand?  Really? That increase to Cadillac plans is about the only thing Obama promised that is happening as promised.

I need a drink.  On to happy hour.  First round is on me, just like your health care.

$ more.


Yes, you have a cadillac health plan.  The details you cited for it are so damn good and so damn affordable that I have trouble believing it.
 
2013-11-01 04:03:20 PM  

whidbey: spman: No, I fully expect to be roundly criticized no matter what, ever since Fark went all derpy derpy liberal.

Or maybe you either haven't thought what you're saying through or perhaps they're so out of touch with real people's needs you deserve the criticism.

Sorry that liberals irritate you.


Hey spman where'd you go? Too bad your ideas weren't as automagically indefensible as you thought they were.
 
2013-11-01 04:03:33 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


In Soviet Georgiastan, they force me, a supposedly free citizen, to purchase auto insurance.  First, there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about horse insurance so why do I need insurance on a car.   Second, I don't need insurance anyway.  I've never crashed.  If these trends continue....
 
2013-11-01 04:03:36 PM  
I love how people act like their insurance premiums never went up before Obamacare.

Also, maybe Obama misspoke when he promised that people could keep their insurance. But he probably didn't consider policies that cover nothing, have astronomical deductibles that would probably bankrupt you anyway, and only allow you to see doctors twice a year "insurance."
 
2013-11-01 04:04:26 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: [www.trbimg.com image 600x415]

What is the picture about?


It is part of a Colorado campaign to get the word out to the college bros to signup. Because it has a keg in it, of course it was a hot point for the Repubs. They grilled Sebelius about it even though it was a state run, not federal exchange.

Of course, had the fed gotten involved, the GOPpies would have been screaming about states' rights.

devcentral.f5.com
 
2013-11-01 04:04:38 PM  

skozlaw: Your claims are unverifiable.


Those claims were promised, and they rang true.  Why you find it improbable eludes me.

Tell me why you don't think the high end insurance plans wouldn't go up in cost?  Obama told you they would, and he was right about that one.
 
2013-11-01 04:05:15 PM  

Stile4aly: Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.


Under the PPACA, a 'cadillac plan' is one that exceeds $10,200/yr for individuals or $27,500/yr for a family (not including vision and dental benefits).
 
2013-11-01 04:06:10 PM  

Tyee: whidbey: You're gone from here as far as I'm concerned.

I have long since lost much interest in what concerns you.  Your idealism aside, you can sometimes show signs of comprehension, unfortunately as you blindly march along into oblivion you're taking us with you.  Go if you must but don't bring us with you.

$


Um, no. You're the one on trial here. And projecting your failure onto me is also pathetic.

Given that you are incapable of getting your rather childish selfish reasons across. I can only conclude that you are trolling this thread and are of no value to Fark whatsoever.

I mean, really. If you're actually the person you claim to be, then you should be able to produce more than the embarrassing crap you've been posting.

Post that bullshiat again and I have no choice but to report you to this site.
 
2013-11-01 04:06:11 PM  

jst3p: PanicMan: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

I should introduce you to my friend.  He had a stroke at 26 due to MS.  He's blind in one eye and walks with a cane.  And that's on his good days.

Go get some god damn insurance.

This is why I avoid buying MS products whenever I can.

/LINUX for life!


Ok I larfed.


I'll just have a seat over here.
 
2013-11-01 04:06:42 PM  

spman: InmanRoshi: spman: You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?


Why yes. Yes I can. Car paid off. No collision on it. Slightly slower internet speed. Virgin Mobile cell phone. Plus ACA subsidy. Finally after 5 years without health insurance I can finally afford a decent policy that isn't a rip off. Thanks Obama.
 
2013-11-01 04:08:06 PM  

whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.


I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.
 
2013-11-01 04:08:39 PM  
I really hate it when I go to a fast food restaurant and they have those little packets of ketchup for people to just take! I don't even like the stuff so why should I have to pay more for my Cheese Burger when I'm never going to use it?!?! It's outrageous and should be stopped. All condiments should be charged for separately so things can be fair for everybody. I shouldn't have to help pay for something I don't use.


/Restaurant = ACA
//Cheese Burger = Health Care
///Ketchup = anything not male related
////Really I don't like ketchup but I don't expect a farking discount.
 
2013-11-01 04:08:54 PM  

Mad_Radhu: JusticeandIndependence: Coming soon on Lifetime.....

[www.theminorityreportblog.com image 702x339]

Don't knock it, the providers are pretty hot:





So long as you appreciate Stevie Nicks, the health care services aren't bad.


And moms jacking off their Frankensons
 
2013-11-01 04:09:30 PM  

Stile4aly: Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.


Re-signed up last month, October, going up 8%  $$.
I really can't understand why this is hard to believe.  It is what was promised and it really is consistent with what is going on in the market.
 
2013-11-01 04:09:44 PM  

whidbey: I have no choice but to report you to this site


what site
 
2013-11-01 04:10:05 PM  
Over the last few weeks there's been lots of Farkers who have commented saying "Thanks Obama! I'm being dropped from insurance, and getting new insurance will cost me more!"

When challenged to provide actual information they either flounder and give bullshiat (not providing facts to back up their statement) or they just disappear.
 
2013-11-01 04:10:09 PM  

sprawl15: Stile4aly: Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.

Under the PPACA, a 'cadillac plan' is one that exceeds $10,200/yr for individuals or $27,500/yr for a family (not including vision and dental benefits).


theinfosphere.org
 
2013-11-01 04:11:52 PM  

whidbey: Whodat: jst3p: Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.

Surely this will cost him his re-election.

I don't see that happening. Obama's standing in the next election has already been decided by those in power. :)

Actually the people are going to overwhelmingly elect another Democrat because they support what they're doing and the Republicans are acting like spoiled children with no plan for the future.

I'm sure that's what you meant by that.


I'm sure that you are wrong.
 
2013-11-01 04:11:58 PM  

maweimer9: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.


I prefer UHC taken right out of our taxes.

But the point is the mandate. People can biatch about ACA all they like, but no matter what we eventually end up with, there is going to still have to be a mandate to get it to work, whether it's this or single-payer or UHC.

In other words, basic fear and ignorance of positive (and necessary) societal progression
 
2013-11-01 04:13:15 PM  

haemaker: He should have said, "If you like the plan you have, and the insurance company continues to offer it, you can keep it".


He should have said "If your current plan is sub-standard, you will be able to get a better plan at an affordable rate."
 
2013-11-01 04:14:23 PM  

Tyee: Stile4aly: Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.

Re-signed up last month, October, going up 8%  $$.
I really can't understand why this is hard to believe.  It is what was promised and it really is consistent with what is going on in the market.


Ok, you've got a Cadillac plan.  Congratulations.

Again, the excise tax on Cadillac plans doesn't kick in for 4 years, so why do you believe this cost increase is the fault of the ACA.  How is it out of line with previous year over year increases?
 
2013-11-01 04:15:22 PM  

Stile4aly: Tyee: Stile4aly: Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.

Re-signed up last month, October, going up 8%  $$.
I really can't understand why this is hard to believe.  It is what was promised and it really is consistent with what is going on in the market.

Ok, you've got a Cadillac plan.  Congratulations.

Again, the excise tax on Cadillac plans doesn't kick in for 4 years, so why do you believe this cost increase is the fault of the ACA.  How is it out of line with previous year over year increases?


Because OBAMA!
 
2013-11-01 04:15:48 PM  

Whodat: whidbey: Whodat: jst3p: Whodat: I think that it boils down to the fact that when Obama said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", he was not telling the truth. It doesn't matter if the plan is a better one. He said it repeatedly with no caveats. It is also coming out that when he said it, many in the administration knew this to be untrue.

Surely this will cost him his re-election.

I don't see that happening. Obama's standing in the next election has already been decided by those in power. :)

Actually the people are going to overwhelmingly elect another Democrat because they support what they're doing and the Republicans are acting like spoiled children with no plan for the future.

I'm sure that's what you meant by that.

I'm sure that you are wrong.


I might be wrong about what you meant, but I'm pretty sure facts trump whatever paranoid conspiracy you were attempting to foist on us.
 
2013-11-01 04:16:03 PM  

sprawl15: whidbey: I have no choice but to report you to this site

what site


Healthcare.gov
 
2013-11-01 04:16:31 PM  

maweimer9: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.


Sure, a complete shift to Medicare for All would cause a lot of job losses and likely tip us into a recession of our own doing, much like the demobilization after WWII did. But it would make the country stronger and probably grow faster in the long run. Hell, if you just plowed all of the private health care spending into the public system and instantly cut down to the admin costs of Medicare, you'd save the country about $700 billion a year. I can think of a lot of productive things we could do with $700 billion a year.
 
2013-11-01 04:16:45 PM  

whidbey: Post that bullshiat again and I have no choice but to report you to this site.


What bullshait?
For what its worth this site really isn't what it used to be.  It used to be discussion and thought, now its name calling.

whidbey, do what you must tough guy, tell your mom too.

I'm paying more, I was lied to, so were you.  I'm lucky I get to keep a plan I like but have to pay more.
Don't like to hear it?  As I said, I have long since lost much interest in what concerns you. I'd still buy you a beer if you ever get to St. Paul.

~out
 
2013-11-01 04:17:24 PM  

skullkrusher: sprawl15: whidbey: I have no choice but to report you to this site

what site

Healthcare.gov


Reported. Sebelius will not be pleased.
 
2013-11-01 04:17:51 PM  

Tyee: whidbey: Post that bullshiat again and I have no choice but to report you to this site.

What bullshait?
For what its worth this site really isn't what it used to be.  It used to be discussion and thought, now its name calling.

whidbey, do what you must tough guy, tell your mom too.

I'm paying more, I was lied to, so were you.  I'm lucky I get to keep a plan I like but have to pay more.
Don't like to hear it?  As I said, I have long since lost much interest in what concerns you. I'd still buy you a beer if you ever get to St. Paul.

~out


Whidbey is the type that would come for a beer and spend 2 weeks on your couch
 
2013-11-01 04:18:03 PM  

GoldSpider: haemaker: He should have said, "If you like the plan you have, and the insurance company continues to offer it, you can keep it".

He should have said "If your current plan is sub-standard, you will be able to get a better plan at an affordable rate."


That wouldn't have assuaged the people who were falling prey to the status quo bias. They wanted to keep their sub-standard plan, damnit!
 
2013-11-01 04:18:26 PM  

dr_blasto: skullkrusher: sprawl15: whidbey: I have no choice but to report you to this site

what site

Healthcare.gov

Reported. Sebelius will not be pleased.


Ffffffaaaaaarrrrrkkkkkkk
 
2013-11-01 04:18:39 PM  

Tyee: whidbey: Post that bullshiat again and I have no choice but to report you to this site.

What bullshait?
For what its worth this site really isn't what it used to be.  It used to be discussion and thought, now its name calling.

whidbey, do what you must tough guy, tell your mom too.

I'm paying more, I was lied to, so were you.  I'm lucky I get to keep a plan I like but have to pay more.
Don't like to hear it?  As I said, I have long since lost much interest in what concerns you. I'd still buy you a beer if you ever get to St. Paul.

~out


Wait.

You said Obama told you that you'd pay more. You said you're paying more. You even noted that this was the factual thing Obama told you.

Now you're being lied to?

I hope your plan covers mental health as well.
 
2013-11-01 04:19:14 PM  

skullkrusher: sprawl15: whidbey: I have no choice but to report you to this site

what site

Healthcare.gov


uh oh that cadillac plan is gonna be cash 4 clunker'd
 
2013-11-01 04:19:15 PM  

Tyee: I'm paying more


Most of us have been paying more, every single year.
 
2013-11-01 04:19:36 PM  

Stile4aly: Tyee: Stile4aly: Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.

Re-signed up last month, October, going up 8%  $$.
I really can't understand why this is hard to believe.  It is what was promised and it really is consistent with what is going on in the market.

Ok, you've got a Cadillac plan.  Congratulations.

Again, the excise tax on Cadillac plans doesn't kick in for 4 years, so why do you believe this cost increase is the fault of the ACA.  How is it out of line with previous year over year increases?


Because the Glorious Benevolent Job Creators would never screw honest, hardworking citizens and blame it on someone else.
 
2013-11-01 04:19:38 PM  

skullkrusher: Whidbey is the type that would come for a beer and spend 2 weeks on your couch


Oh, never mind whidbey.

~gone for reals
 
2013-11-01 04:20:43 PM  

Two Dogs Farking: "I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov."



i287.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-01 04:20:45 PM  

whidbey: maweimer9: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.

I prefer UHC taken right out of our taxes.

But the point is the mandate. People can biatch about ACA all they like, but no matter what we eventually end up with, there is going to still have to be a mandate to get it to work, whether it's this or single-payer or UHC.

In other words, basic fear and ignorance of positive (and necessary) societal progression


I completely agree.  We have to pay for things.  Things that are necessary for a successful society.  And I think that the sooner people realize A) you can't pay for nothing and get everything and B) 100% of your tax dollars aren't going to things you necessarily need or use readily....we're all be a little better off.

It's just the boot strappy, I did everything myself so I don't need to pitch in for the greater good type mentality is UBER contagious right now and has infected almost half of this country.
 
2013-11-01 04:20:58 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Hey!  That completely describes me a couple of years back.  Almost never sick.  No major hereditary factors.  No high-risk hobbies.  Mid-twenties and healthy as a horse.

Until I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

Thankfully I was insured through my employer at the time and got the care I needed.  But now, thanks to the ACA, I won't ever have to worry about losing that insurance and not being able to replace it nwo that I have a "pre-existing condition" that requires $4 worth of pills every month to keep under control.

It's too bad there are so many people who are dumb enough to think that they're immune to disease just because they rarely get the sniffles.
 
2013-11-01 04:20:58 PM  

Serious Black: That wouldn't have assuaged the people who were falling prey to the status quo bias. They wanted to keep their sub-standard plan, damnit!


FIX OLD!
NO NEW!
 
2013-11-01 04:21:59 PM  
I have a Lexus plan.  It's like a regular plan, but it has more chrome.
 
2013-11-01 04:22:19 PM  

jst3p: Tyee: I'm paying more

Most of us have been paying more, every single year.


That's one thing that ain't gonna change
 
2013-11-01 04:22:23 PM  

dslknowitall: I really hate it when I go to a fast food restaurant and they have those little packets of ketchup for people to just take! I don't even like the stuff so why should I have to pay more for my Cheese Burger when I'm never going to use it?!?! It's outrageous and should be stopped. All condiments should be charged for separately so things can be fair for everybody. I shouldn't have to help pay for something I don't use.


/Restaurant = ACA
//Cheese Burger = Health Care
///Ketchup = anything not male related
////Really I don't like ketchup but I don't expect a farking discount.


I've heard this argument from a few complete morons before (way, way, worse than the way you phrased it).

People seem to be thinking that insurance companies charge you part of your premium for balls & shaft related issues, and then another part of your premium to cover your non-existent thatchers - that basically you're paying $10 for something you need and $10 to cover body parts you don't have.

In reality, I imagine what actually happens is that you're charged $20 for any genital related concerns you may have, no matter which set you personally own.  That way they don't have to tailor plans specifically for men or women, they just charge the same thing for any of it.
 
2013-11-01 04:23:01 PM  

maweimer9: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.


I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

Ultimately you wouldn't lose 100% due to supplemental coverage plans, etc., but you'd only retain 10% of those employees most likely. It's a serious hit to the economy, but would be better in the long run. Plus, if we as individuals start having more disposable income due to a reduction in our healthcare costs, there'd likely be a boom in various other sectors.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-01 04:23:18 PM  

Serious Black: Sure, a complete shift to Medicare for All would cause a lot of job losses and likely tip us into a recession of our own doing, much like the demobilization after WWII did. But it would make the country stronger and probably grow faster in the long run. Hell, if you just plowed all of the private health care spending into the public system and instantly cut down to the admin costs of Medicare, you'd save the country about $700 billion a year. I can think of a lot of productive things we could do with $700 billion a year.


There is no way to calculate it, but why does everyone not understand that there are billions of dollars that never get generated in the U.S. because people are AFRAID to open new businesses or join a small business because healthcare is so linked to employers?  Take that away and all employers will do better (including the multinational ones) and the small businesses that we really need to generate U.S. jobs will benefit.

The U.S. is so stuck in multi-national corporation worshiping mode that they can never see that it's the small business generating the jobs, not the assholes that are big enough they can put the job in India if they want.
 
2013-11-01 04:24:51 PM  

Freudian_slipknot: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Hey!  That completely describes me a couple of years back.  Almost never sick.  No major hereditary factors.  No high-risk hobbies.  Mid-twenties and healthy as a horse.

Until I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

Thankfully I was insured through my employer at the time and got the care I needed.  But now, thanks to the ACA, I won't ever have to worry about losing that insurance and not being able to replace it nwo that I have a "pre-existing condition" that requires $4 worth of pills every month to keep under control.

It's too bad there are so many people who are dumb enough to think that they're immune to disease just because they rarely get the sniffles.


$4 of pills?! Good thing you have insurance! That's like $.12 a day! ;)

/congrats on beating the C
 
2013-11-01 04:24:56 PM  

Serious Black: maweimer9: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.

Sure, a complete shift to Medicare for All would cause a lot of job losses and likely tip us into a recession of our own doing, much like the demobilization after WWII did. But it would make the country stronger and probably grow faster in the long run. Hell, if you just plowed all of the private health care spending into the public system and instantly cut down to the admin costs of ...


Fair enough....but the health care industry is currently a 2.7 trillion dollar/year industry, admittedly not all of that is jobs from insurance companies, but a good chunk of that is.  That's a lot of unemployment.  And the economy hasn't recovered as fast as it could have b/c of mostly the right's obstruction given the implementation of their own health care plan.  How much worse would it be if we went single payer??
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-01 04:25:19 PM  

kidgenius: I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

Ultimately you wouldn't lose 100% due to supplemental coverage plans, etc., but you'd only retain 10% of those employees most likely. It's a serious hit to the economy, but would be better in the long run. Plus, if we as individuals start having more disposable income due to a reduction in our healthcare costs, there'd likely be a boom in various other sectors.


It's like crying that 90% of the parasites are going to die if you pull them out of your body.  Jessh.

Let them find new hosts or die.
 
2013-11-01 04:26:24 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I have a Lexus plan.  It's like a regular plan, but it has more chrome.


I have the Escalade plan. I bought it with food stamps
 
2013-11-01 04:26:26 PM  
QFTA:

Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan...

Now we see how much of a lying, two-faced slut biatch whore she is--arguing that her plan is just like ACA plans but more expensive.

I'm glad there's a political party for lying, two-faced, slut biatch whores. It's just that there's so many lying, two-faced, slut biatch whores.

You'd think I'd get used to that fact having attended Arizona State.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-01 04:26:35 PM  

maweimer9: Fair enough....but the health care industry is currently a 2.7 trillion dollar/year industry, admittedly not all of that is jobs from insurance companies, but a good chunk of that is. That's a lot of unemployment. And the economy hasn't recovered as fast as it could have b/c of mostly the right's obstruction given the implementation of their own health care plan. How much worse would it be if we went single payer??


Oh man.. if we were talking about factory workers being thrown out then the words "buggy whip" would have been brought up already.
 
2013-11-01 04:26:55 PM  
I get a huge chuckle out of the people saying, "My insurance plans are going up by (some number less than 10)%"

Have you looked at your insurance plans recently?  What % do you think they were going up year over year?

I'll give you a hint -- it's much, much more.
 
2013-11-01 04:30:14 PM  

whidbey: You're done here.


FitzShivering: Have you looked at your insurance plans recently? What % do you think they were going up year over year?


a plan costing $400 in 2013 going up 12% year over year would have cost less than $30 in 1990
 
2013-11-01 04:30:55 PM  

spmkk: Two Dogs Farking: "I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov."


[i287.photobucket.com image 303x365]


Given the recent actions of the Republican party, absolutely NOTHING would surprise me. A party willing to shut down the government and threaten a default over a healthcare law is not a party that will refuse to cross any lines.

Until Republicans are out of power ENTIRELY, and the conservative Democratic party has a liberal party as its opposition, America will never be exceptional again. Period.
 
2013-11-01 04:31:00 PM  

sprawl15: whidbey: You're done here.


the gif is too damn big

well just imagine the greatest facepalm gif ever created
 
2013-11-01 04:31:31 PM  
Karac:
In reality, I imagine what actually happens is that you're charged $20 for any genital related concerns you may have, no matter which set you personally own.  That way they don't have to tailor plans specifically for men or women, they just charge the same thing for any of it.

That's where I was going with my comment. Sadly there is no factious/sarcasm font.
 
2013-11-01 04:32:17 PM  

kidgenius: maweimer9: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.

I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

Ultimately you wouldn't lose 100% due to supplemental coverage plans, etc., but you'd only retain 10% of those employees most likely. It's a serious hit to the economy, but would be better in the long run. Plus, if we as ...


Glad you brought this up!  The thing is, you're not just dealing with those few million people.  For example, those big insurance companies outsource claim processing of other departments (like dental, vision) to other specialty companies that have systems better suited to process those claims.  So there's those jobs that are gone now.

Then you have to think of the surrounding businesses like restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores that will take a hit from less traffic.  Macro economically speaking, losing that many jobs that fast would be devastating.

Then you have to remember that these companies have lobbyists with huge pockets making sure that they don't go single payer.  Point is (and again I'm not against it philosophically), it would take a LONG time to recover.
 
2013-11-01 04:32:44 PM  
If I had my way, this woman would be locked up and rotting with the rest of the subversives.
 
2013-11-01 04:33:20 PM  

sprawl15: sprawl15: whidbey: You're done here.

the gif is too damn big

well just imagine the greatest facepalm gif ever created


like all the fingers on the hand are dicks and the face is your least favorite little pony
 
2013-11-01 04:33:37 PM  

JustLookin: I'm thinking of setting up a business where for a fee I help all of these idiots navigate the healthcare marketplace.  It's staggering the number of people in my Facebook feed who cannot see what is right in front of their faces.

So many of these people are lower-income white people who just want to be pissed at Obama.  They do their search on the website, find the worst plan, and post that to FB as if that's all they could find.  One idiot I know who claimed to have a $1200/mo income searched and found a bare bones plan at $263/mo or something and lamented his bad luck.  I went and searched using the same income data and found that because he was within 125% of the poverty lines, he'd get extensive premium support.  Yet he just threw up his hands and blamed Obama.

All these bootstrappy types become such whiny little biatches when the ACA is involved.  There's got to be a way for me to make money off of this.


Start your own facebook page and re:RE:re chain e-mail about 'this one trick to avoid Obamacare and sign-up YOUR WAY!!!1!"
For a fee, you can get their information then sign them up on the website.

/if you do this, I expect like a 1% idea fee
 
2013-11-01 04:34:12 PM  

skullkrusher: Rapmaster2000: I have a Lexus plan.  It's like a regular plan, but it has more chrome.

I have the Escalade plan. I bought it with food stamps


Escalaid
 
2013-11-01 04:34:37 PM  

skullkrusher: jst3p: Tyee: I'm paying more

Most of us have been paying more, every single year.

That's one thing that ain't gonna change


We could stop doing it in such an inefficient way though.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-01 04:36:13 PM  

skullkrusher: $4 of pills?! Good thing you have insurance! That's like $.12 a day! ;)

/congrats on beating the C


I don't need the insurance for the pills (and I don't generally use my insurance for them as they're on the $4 list at most pharmacies but I have a $5 generic copay), but the $30k in surgical and hospital bills and the ongoing care of an endocrinologist are kinda important.  I had to have blood tests every six weeks for a year after the surgery to get my TSH levels right again.

However, most critically, I will always be able to be responsible and purchase my own insurance regardless of whether my employer chooses to offer that benefit.  That's 100% because of Obamacare.  Before that, cancer survivors could go fark themselves as far as insurers were concerned.

This law has changed my life because I'm no longer desperately tied to corporate employment and now have the freedom to work in whatever field I choose or to open my own business.
 
2013-11-01 04:38:17 PM  

skullkrusher: jst3p: Tyee: I'm paying more

Most of us have been paying more, every single year.

That's one thing that ain't gonna change


But it won't stop you from blaming it all on Romneycare.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-01 04:39:44 PM  

jst3p: skullkrusher: jst3p: Tyee: I'm paying more

Most of us have been paying more, every single year.

That's one thing that ain't gonna change

We could stop doing it in such an inefficient way though.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]


it's a great graph, but the one that breaks down the graph into two colors with private and public spending is more telling.  France has a single payer system, and the U.S. pays more PUBLIC money to healthcare than the French do.
 
2013-11-01 04:40:14 PM  
I just went and poked around on the healthcare.gov site.  No technical issues at all, and with no ability to get subsidy help, there appears to be multiple "Gold" plans and one "Platinum" plan in the $250 - $310 range for me.  Assuming I make partner (fingers crossed), come Jan 1, I'll be responsible for the full freight of my health insurance, and the exchange appears to be offering me $80 - $170/mo. savings.   Wasn't able to get a good look at what the plan actually covers, so still more looking to do, but this seems like a positive development.
 
2013-11-01 04:42:14 PM  

d23: jst3p: skullkrusher: jst3p: Tyee: I'm paying more

Most of us have been paying more, every single year.

That's one thing that ain't gonna change

We could stop doing it in such an inefficient way though.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

it's a great graph, but the one that breaks down the graph into two colors with private and public spending is more telling.  France has a single payer system, and the U.S. pays more PUBLIC money to healthcare than the French do.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-01 04:42:15 PM  

lennavan: sweetmelissa31: James!: spman: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that these people do not belong in the emergency room, because clearly many of them do. What I am saying is that the notion of an emergency room filled with people that should be insured, but aren't, is a false one.

Based on your vast knowledge of emergency rooms?

This is very suspicious. In my experience, the typical emergency room has never contained a perfectly healthy 18-45 year old.

Other than parents taking their kids of course.


Or people who have insurance have an actual emergency that requires something more than a bandage.

I wasn't feeling well; hadn't for several weeks. Made an appointment to see my dr. Had an x-ray and all sorts of stuff. My doctor said go to this hospital's ER (where he had privileges) and I'll have someone help you.

Five days and $50K of tests showed I had become a type II diabetic.

My point is that I spent about two hours in the ER -- AND I had insurance. A lot of people in the ER facility may have insurance . . . and also have an "emergency."

Oh, both my parents (also insured) made more than a few ER visits. That's where they take you when you have a "heart event" or something that suggests a stroke. I bet my mom was hauled away a dozen times by Medic One for heart events.
 
2013-11-01 04:43:56 PM  

tulax: Wasn't able to get a good look at what the plan actually covers, so still more looking to do, but this seems like a positive development.


In case you didn't know, a "gold" plan covers 80% of actuarial value and a "platinum" plan covers 90%. Those are determined by average costs for someone of your age/conditions, so if you get a platinum plan you will on average only have to pay 10% of all your health care costs. Obviously tailoring it to your own needs/finances will be able to make it functionally better than simply the actuarial value, but that's the baseline expectation to be able to even get those labels.

"Bronze" is 60%, and no plan is allowed to go less than that.
 
2013-11-01 04:48:36 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: skullkrusher: jst3p: Tyee: I'm paying more

Most of us have been paying more, every single year.

That's one thing that ain't gonna change

But it won't stop you from blaming it all on Romneycare.


On yeah? Why do you say that? Is it because you like the warm foolish feeling that making assumptions with no basis in reality gives you?
Is it because you're not bright enough to understand that not all conservatives are the same? Does judging people's actual opinions prove too difficult so you go with a one size fits all policy? Maybe something I didn't list?
 
2013-11-01 04:50:24 PM  

Freudian_slipknot: skullkrusher: $4 of pills?! Good thing you have insurance! That's like $.12 a day! ;)

/congrats on beating the C

I don't need the insurance for the pills (and I don't generally use my insurance for them as they're on the $4 list at most pharmacies but I have a $5 generic copay), but the $30k in surgical and hospital bills and the ongoing care of an endocrinologist are kinda important.  I had to have blood tests every six weeks for a year after the surgery to get my TSH levels right again.

However, most critically, I will always be able to be responsible and purchase my own insurance regardless of whether my employer chooses to offer that benefit.  That's 100% because of Obamacare.  Before that, cancer survivors could go fark themselves as far as insurers were concerned.

This law has changed my life because I'm no longer desperately tied to corporate employment and now have the freedom to work in whatever field I choose or to open my own business.


Congrats again and good luck
 
2013-11-01 04:54:21 PM  
img.fark.net

If that guy on the right would only piss on a spark plug, the site would be fixed by now!
 
2013-11-01 05:11:34 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place?


Because severe illness strikes "totally healthy" people all the freakin' time. And as we haven't gone Ayn Rand to the point where we let people croak if they can't pay, the rest of us pick up the tab for those who decide to roll the dice on getting the cheap-ass plan.
 
2013-11-01 05:11:57 PM  

Cagey B: So she'll have to pay less for a shiatty catastrophic coverage plan that actually covers more doctor visits, or she can opt to pay the gargantuan sum of $40 a month extra and get a plan that's substantially better?

I can't wait for the anti-ACA shills to come in and start white-knighting her.


I call BS on both sides. How is the plan described in the article substantially better?

E.g.it covers more doctor visits per year, but in a smaller network. Unless you're a new born or under treatment for a specific ailment, who goes to the doctor more than twice a year?

Basically if you value all the things the alternative plan does better and discount all the things her current plan does better, then it is "substantially better."

Objectively it seemed more like a lateral move. So no, obamacare is not sending her to the death panel, but the plans offered are not soooo much better than her current plan either.
 
2013-11-01 05:12:53 PM  
When I was self-employed, the best plan (pre-ACA) I could get was at a rate of "go f**k yourself" per month, with a maximum out-of-pocket of "how about all of it" and a co-pay of "whatever the doctor charges you" per visit.
 
2013-11-01 05:16:13 PM  

jst3p: d23: jst3p: skullkrusher: jst3p: Tyee: I'm paying more

Most of us have been paying more, every single year.

That's one thing that ain't gonna change

We could stop doing it in such an inefficient way though.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

it's a great graph, but the one that breaks down the graph into two colors with private and public spending is more telling.  France has a single payer system, and the U.S. pays more PUBLIC money to healthcare than the French do.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 746x471]


I wonder how many GOP supporters know that there are only about 3 other countries that spend more public money on health care than the US.
 
2013-11-01 05:16:24 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I have a Lexus plan.  It's like a regular plan, but it has more chrome.


I have an Acura plan.   It's like a regular Honda, but less chrome and more car analogies.
 
2013-11-01 05:17:39 PM  
maybe people don't want a government subsidized plan?
 
2013-11-01 05:22:19 PM  

Flappyhead: I wonder how many GOP supporters know that there are only about 3 other countries that spend more public money on health care than the US.


The only shocking thing to me is that nobody is on TV telling us that the reason healthcare is more expensive in the United States because of "diversity."

Apparently, some time in the last five years, saying that something wont work because of America's "diversity" turned from a dog whistle to a train whistle.

So that's kind of nice.

/// thanks obama
//// no, really.   thanks obama.
 
2013-11-01 05:26:06 PM  

havocmike: maybe people don't want a government subsidized plan?


Maybe sick and injured people  want to just die on the side of the road?

Ha ha... I'm just kidding.  In the old days, the family would take them home to die on the kitchen table.

// this was an actual argument made on a newspaper forum.  "My grandfather died of a burst appendix on the kitchen table, because his family didn't have enough money for a doctor. When did we turn from a nation of self-reliant men into a nation that depends on government handouts?"
 
2013-11-01 05:27:13 PM  

ox45tallboy: Kevin72: Legendary Oxtallboy, great to see you back! I have unlimited data with Sprint if that helps.

I'm at my parents' house for the past summer and for the next few months working on building a huge handicapped-accessible addition to their house. AT&T is the only choice I have for service, as Sprint coverage is horrible here, and high-speed is nonexistent.

I'm trying to get my Mom to sign up for Obamacare, but she's a staunch Republican who votes only on abortion, and therefore feels obligated to support their policy positions. On top of that, her extended family is full of Teatards that send her all kinds of FWD: FWD: FW: disinformation, and when I try to counter with actual facts, she accuses me of being "biased". Maybe I am. It's still frustrating when she refuses to look at the actual facts. Oddly enough, the part of Obamacare she most supports is the individual mandate, but she's completely against any form of socialized or single payer medicine. Oddly enough, my disabled Dad is on Medicare, and the only problems he has are related to the supplementary policy and privatized Part D (he just got switched this month to a new provider who won't cover his entire prescription for one set of pills, only half that amount).

/And why does everyone this week keep saying "welcome back"? My 'Recent' page shows 151 posts in the last 30 days, and 869 in the last 180. I haven't went anywhere!


This puts you in the same category as Joe DiMaggio who also had to say "I haven't gone anywhere" to answer the musical question "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio".

www.mishalov.com
 
2013-11-01 05:34:17 PM  

ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.


What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?
 
2013-11-01 05:38:40 PM  

The Larch: Flappyhead: I wonder how many GOP supporters know that there are only about 3 other countries that spend more public money on health care than the US.

The only shocking thing to me is that nobody is on TV telling us that the reason healthcare is more expensive in the United States because of "diversity."

Apparently, some time in the last five years, saying that something wont work because of America's "diversity" turned from a dog whistle to a train whistle.

So that's kind of nice.

/// thanks obama
//// no, really.   thanks obama.


You still hear it brought up in single-payer arguments, though it's couched in "similar demographics" and stuff like that.
 
2013-11-01 05:41:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?


Up to $49 billion per year on uninsured patients.

That number, however, does not include all of the insured patients who declare bankruptcy due to expenses, which is roughly 75% of medical bankruptcies in America
 
2013-11-01 05:47:00 PM  

aaronx: I must say that it is pretty frustrating to keep having to defend a Republican plan from Republican attacks.

Can you imagine the shrieking if we had managed to pass a 'public option'?


We will have come full circle when republicans propose a public option to allow their constituents to opt out of Obamacare.    (Shhh.  Don't say anything when they propose it.  They'll think they're really getting something over on the libs.)
 
2013-11-01 05:51:05 PM  

Freudian_slipknot: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

Up to $49 billion per year on uninsured patients.


That's sounds like an awfully big number. What percentage is that of the total?
 
2013-11-01 05:52:46 PM  
Only a single one of my rednames showed up in this thread, and that was to comment about a tangential point to the Obamacare discussion not the topic at hand.

I guess if they just ignore what goes against their worldview it'll go away.
 
2013-11-01 05:53:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?


I answered those questions when you asked them the last time.

Are you incapable of learning?
 
2013-11-01 05:54:19 PM  
i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-01 05:54:33 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Because, apart from the compelling financial reasons, you are not staying in that age or health indefinitely. Also, while this won't matter to many Americans, it is simply the decent thing to do.
 
2013-11-01 05:54:46 PM  
I think that is it. I think mr jangles got hit with some brain damage preventing some types of new memories from forming. That would explain why he asks the same questions every thread.
 
2013-11-01 05:55:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Freudian_slipknot: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

Up to $49 billion per year on uninsured patients.

That's sounds like an awfully big number. What percentage is that of the total?


Total for 2011 was $2.7 Trillion so about 2%...

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-T re nds-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
 
2013-11-01 05:55:10 PM  

havocmike: maybe people don't want a government subsidized plan?


Some people don't want roads, either. Or sewers . or garbage collection. They are in the minority, and they lost those debates.
If every kook who doesn't want something that society needs was given his way, there would be no government or civilization at all. That's why we have democracy - to make collective decisions fairly. Those who don't like society's collective decisions are free to either address them politically, or go live in some other society. Just declaring that you are going to break everything if you don't get your way is not the path to political or social success in America.
 
2013-11-01 05:55:33 PM  

Smackledorfer: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?

I answered those questions when you asked them the last time.

Are you incapable of learning?


If the answers don't fit the narrative, very incapable.
 
2013-11-01 05:56:11 PM  

Smackledorfer: Are you incapable of learning?


Apparently.  ...and apparently incapable of using Google.
 
2013-11-01 05:57:51 PM  

jso2897: havocmike: maybe people don't want a government subsidized plan?

Some people don't want roads, either. Or sewers . or garbage collection. They are in the minority, and they lost those debates.
If every kook who doesn't want something that society needs was given his way, there would be no government or civilization at all. That's why we have democracy - to make collective decisions fairly. Those who don't like society's collective decisions are free to either address them politically, or go live in some other society. Just declaring that you are going to break everything if you don't get your way is not the path to political or social success in America.


Possibly, but this man will try his best to make it work...

www.slate.com
 
2013-11-01 06:02:29 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Why is the concept of insurance and risk pooling so hard to understand.  Very few people would risk financial ruin by not insuring their house, but you are willing to risk it for your health?

If people were routinely turned away from ERs if they didn't have the means to pay would you still be so satisfied with your sub-Obamacare policy?   You are betting on not needing expensive healthcare, and then using the ER and the compassion of others as your backup plan.  Not very self-reliant.
 
2013-11-01 06:03:40 PM  

Freudian_slipknot: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?

Up to $49 billion per year on uninsured patients.

That number, however, does not include all of the insured patients who declare bankruptcy due to expenses, which is roughly 75% of medical bankruptcies in America


He's a troll who really doesn't care about the answer and just wants to play you.
 
2013-11-01 06:05:00 PM  

haemaker: jso2897: havocmike: maybe people don't want a government subsidized plan?

Some people don't want roads, either. Or sewers . or garbage collection. They are in the minority, and they lost those debates.
If every kook who doesn't want something that society needs was given his way, there would be no government or civilization at all. That's why we have democracy - to make collective decisions fairly. Those who don't like society's collective decisions are free to either address them politically, or go live in some other society. Just declaring that you are going to break everything if you don't get your way is not the path to political or social success in America.

Possibly, but this man will try his best to make it work...

[www.slate.com image 568x379]


No doubt - so I would ask the haters: "What's the hurry?"
If ACA is so bad, it will soon become evident, and all those sadly misguided Americans who think it's a good idea will be educated, and next time they'll listen to you Real Americans (tm) when you talk!
Why not exercise just a little patience, and let this horrible failure fail, so that everybody can see what a failure it is?
What's the big, fat, hurry?
Hmmmmmmm?
 
2013-11-01 06:05:25 PM  

InmanRoshi: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x617]


They keep their plan, but many employers are requiring more individual contribution.  Where I work, the increase in individual contribution was 50% over last year.
 
2013-11-01 06:06:37 PM  

jst3p: PanicMan: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

I should introduce you to my friend.  He had a stroke at 26 due to MS.  He's blind in one eye and walks with a cane.  And that's on his good days.

Go get some god damn insurance.

This is why I avoid buying MS products whenever I can.

/LINUX for life!


As soon as I added the comment I knew someone would say that.  But it was too late.
 
2013-11-01 06:07:49 PM  

haemaker: BojanglesPaladin: Freudian_slipknot: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

Up to $49 billion per year on uninsured patients.

That's sounds like an awfully big number. What percentage is that of the total?

Total for 2011 was $2.7 Trillion so about 2%...

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-T re nds-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf


Nor does total national healthcare expenditure equate to the cost borne by hospitals, specifically, for the care of the underinsured.  That's generally assumed to be about 51% of total healthcare spending.

As I pointed out, the cost of the uninsured as quoted does not include the considerable cost of the UNDER-insured who are forced into bankruptcy by insufficient coverage by their insurance providers.

Nor are those costs born equally by all hospitals. Those in affluent areas are far less affected by the costs of uninsured patients than those in areas with higher poverty levels, and also have far fewer assets.

If you're looking for simple numbers in a very complex situation, I can only assume that's a specific strategy for obfuscation.
 
2013-11-01 06:08:13 PM  

haemaker: Apparently.  ...and apparently incapable of using Google.


Confirmed.
 
2013-11-01 06:08:48 PM  

Tyee: skozlaw:..... current premium, premium of the next closest plan, state, age and income so that all this can be validated with facts, please.

So you want transparency and numbers from a private person, posted on the interwebs, ...is that because you can't get info from your government... b/c that won't release its numbers information on sign ups?

You find an 8% increase in a Cadillac plan difficult to believe or understand?  Really? That increase to Cadillac plans is about the only thing Obama promised that is happening as promised.

I need a drink.  On to happy hour.  First round is on me, just like your health care.

$ more.


Past 10-12 years has seen rate increases of around 12-15%. 2011 and 2012 saw increases drop to around 7%.
If yours went up 8%, is that less than 15%?
 
2013-11-01 06:10:26 PM  

BeesNuts: James!: spman: James!: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because accidents happen.

There's also a 4.75% chance of hitting blackjack in any random draw, but I'm not exactly going to the Casino and putting $100 a hand down waiting for it.

You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.  Get insurance kid.

My favorite part is that his age range is 18 to FORTY FIVE.  First off, hands up, who's thirty+ and completely lacks health issues in here? My guess is... one?  On the high end.  On the other side of things, this law benefits your 18-26 year olds by letting them stay on their parents plans.

So we're talking about healthy 27 to 45 year olds.  Who "don't need or want insurance".

What's your guess?  I think this kid's 19.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who laughed at that.

By 30 I had multiple preexisting conditions that would've kept me off the individual market.  Before 35 my "never sick" husband had a cancer scare, surgery, and ludicrous amounts of ongoing followup work.

I strongly suspect that the only people who make it to 45 without some major health problem are the folks who stick their heads in the sand pretending that lump is nothing.
 
2013-11-01 06:13:51 PM  

Witty_Retort: Past 10-12 years has seen rate increases of around 12-15%. 2011 and 2012 saw increases drop to around 7%.
If yours went up 8%, is that less than 15%?


I applaud you, it is difficult to describe the 2nd derivative.
 
2013-11-01 06:22:28 PM  

kidgenius: I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.


But wouldn't some percentage be eligible to be shifted over to the new, larger single-payer system?
The largest job-losses should, theoretically, come from CEO types and upper level management.
The government would need more pencil pushers, though.
 
2013-11-01 06:31:16 PM  

Witty_Retort: kidgenius: I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

But wouldn't some percentage be eligible to be shifted over to the new, larger single-payer system?
The largest job-losses should, theoretically, come from CEO types and upper level management.
The government would need more pencil pushers, though.


Keeping a useless system in place because it keeps people employed is really lousy.  Yes, it will increase unemployment, yes, some of them will get jobs in the new system, but most won't.

It shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.
 
2013-11-01 06:33:40 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Why in Godsname are you 45 and not buying health insurance? Hell why are you not 27 and buying it (because before 26 you are covered under your parents' care, THANKS OBAMACARE.)

Don't you have kids and care?

And who the hell ISN'T at risk for hereditary disease? What sort of livestock cattle genetically perfect children are you breeding?
 
2013-11-01 06:35:51 PM  
i58.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-01 06:38:41 PM  

Witty_Retort: The largest job-losses should, theoretically, come from CEO types and upper level management.


wait according to what theory
 
2013-11-01 06:44:37 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: [i58.photobucket.com image 601x417]


"Mister Senator all that shows me is that Friendship is Magic and that Fluttershy is obviously best pony.. look at her there, all curled up, not showing off like that dazzling biatch Rarity or that winking Applejack...."
 
2013-11-01 06:45:58 PM  

haemaker: [img.fark.net image 600x415]

If that guy on the right would only piss on a spark plug, the site would be fixed by now!


Nice War Games reference.
 
2013-11-01 06:56:37 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Because you are paying for the ability to have health insurance if you get sick, this is like auto insurance where sure you can say you are a safe driver but you never know when you will get in an accident just like you never know you will get a preexisting condition.  We all pay for people who get ill and are not insured right now, this just makes sure we all pay our fair share.
 
2013-11-01 07:05:36 PM  

interstellar_tedium: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because you are paying for the ability to have health insurance if you get sick, this is like auto insurance where sure you can say you are a safe driver but you never know when you will get in an accident just like you never know you will get a preexisting condition.  We all pay for people who get ill and are not insured right now, this just makes sure we all pay our fair share.


Actully, in some ways, it is JUST like auto insurance.  If you get injured, even through no fault of your own, someone has to pay the bills.   Even if you can prove someone else hurt you, you are on the hook for the bills until you can collect from the other party. If they don't pay, you have to sue them, and your lawyer gets 33% of all the winnings, including compensatory damages.

With insurance, they pay, and they go after the people who hurt you to get compensated.
 
2013-11-01 07:19:11 PM  

LordJiro: "Until Republicans are out of power ENTIRELY, and the conservative Democratic party has a liberal party as its opposition,  America will never be exceptional again. Period."



You do realize that the "exceptional" America you long for -- i.e. the America of the 1950s/60s -- was exceptional at a time when (a) racial desegregation hadn't been outlawed, (b) abortion was illegal, (c) Medicare hadn't been enacted, (d) health care in the US was entirely private, (e) the EPA didn't exist, and (f) US military spending was proportionately  twice what it is today...do you not?

In other words, the "exceptionalism" that you blame Republicans for holding America back from today belongs to a time when nearly all of the crazy, bigoted policies that those evil Republicans are allegedly scaring you with were in force. Hmm...
 
2013-11-01 07:28:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: I answered those questions when you asked them the last time.


Not so much, actually, though you DID spend a lot of time arguing that the answers don't matter.

haemaker: Total for 2011 was $2.7 Trillion so about 2%...


Yep. That seems to be the consensus. 98% is paid for, 2% isn't. That's the size of our "free-rider" problem.

Freudian_slipknot: Nor does total national healthcare expenditure equate to the cost borne by hospitals, specifically, for the care of the underinsured. That's generally assumed to be about 51% of total healthcare spending.


More than HALF? I would be interested to see your cites for that. How can it be that 2% of the national bill for healthcare goes unpaid, but 51% is 'borne' by hospitals when people's insurance doesn't cover it. What exactly do you mean here? What, exactly is 51% of total healthcare spending and where did you get that number?

To clarify, do you mean that 51% of healthcare expenditures are borne by hospitals, who happen to care for many of the uninsured? (Presumably via their ERs).

Or do you mean that more than half of the money spent in this country to provide health care is not paid for by insurance?
 
2013-11-01 07:28:56 PM  
$5000 deductible is too high? Why are there exchange plans with $5000 and $6000 deductibles then?
 
2013-11-01 07:30:38 PM  
Wow. Bald faced lies now. But please show me where I said those specific numbers don't matter.

Lies of this nature are a sign of very lazy trolling, even for you.
 
2013-11-01 07:37:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yep. That seems to be the consensus. 98% is paid for, 2% isn't. That's the size of our "free-rider" problem.


Yep, and now we need to ask why hospitals jack up the prices to cover all the "free ride" when it is really only 2%.
 
2013-11-01 07:44:29 PM  

spmkk: LordJiro: "Until Republicans are out of power ENTIRELY, and the conservative Democratic party has a liberal party as its opposition,  America will never be exceptional again. Period."


You do realize that the "exceptional" America you long for -- i.e. the America of the 1950s/60s -- was exceptional at a time when (a) racial desegregation hadn't been outlawed, (b) abortion was illegal, (c) Medicare hadn't been enacted, (d) health care in the US was entirely private, (e) the EPA didn't exist, and (f) US military spending was proportionately  twice what it is today...do you not?

In other words, the "exceptionalism" that you blame Republicans for holding America back from today belongs to a time when nearly all of the crazy, bigoted policies that those evil Republicans are allegedly scaring you with were in force. Hmm...


And here's the part where you demonstrate that the exceptional America that LJ is referring to is the America of the 1950s/1960s.
 
2013-11-01 07:49:03 PM  

saintstryfe: Satanic_Hamster: [i58.photobucket.com image 601x417]

"Mister Senator all that shows me is that Friendship is Magic and that Fluttershy is obviously best pony.. look at her there, all curled up, not showing off like that dazzling biatch Rarity or that winking Applejack...."


"Where's Trixie or Cross-Eyed Pony?"
 
2013-11-01 08:05:42 PM  

jigger: $5000 deductible is too high? Why are there exchange plans with $5000 and $6000 deductibles then?


Who said $5000 deductible is too high? That's not (in and of itself) why the existing plan is no longer qualified. There are eligible plans, as you note, with high deductibles. I mean, it probably is too high if you're among the (no joke) majority of Americans who couldn't come up with $1000 readily.  But, if you're in the position (and plenty of people are) where you could pay $10k fairly easily (a few times) without crying too much, but would rather not be bankrupted by cancer/major trauma, a high deductible is reasonable.

The problem is more likely that the old plan was either not adequately comprehensive ("sorry, did you say lymphoma... we're only covering solid cancers, bybye") or may have had a medical-payout-ratio of way below the new 60% floor.
 
2013-11-01 08:20:20 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: To clarify, do you mean that 51% of healthcare expenditures are borne by hospitals, who happen to care for many of the uninsured?


Correct.  I should have stated that more clearly.
 
2013-11-01 08:22:19 PM  

Deedeemarz: FlashHarry: i saw that story linked in a salon article. i think it's this link:  http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77990231/

thanks for the link. That story is about what I expected.
I just had a similar conversation with my mother (who has a medicare substitute plan) but thought she would have to choose and lose a bunch of coverage. Of course, she doesn't. She and my dad have been watching Fox and never even checked to see if they could save some dough. I walked them through the website. Even though they don't qualify for subsidy, there were several options that are cheaper than and very similar to their current coverage. They need to stop believing the news and investigate for themselves!


This is why the Republican party keeps on lying, even though it's so easy to disprove those lies in a few minutes on Google - just make up some lies, feed it to the rubes via Breitbart or Fox News, and watch them swallow it down without question. Thinking is hard!
 
2013-11-01 08:30:02 PM  

spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?


Has anybody pointed out how impossible this is to you yet?
 
2013-11-01 08:50:06 PM  
I'm in South Dakota. The governor here (a Republican) decided to opt out of the Medicaid expansion so there is no subsidies for my family and I. The Medicaid expansion was a part of the ACA, but when the Supreme Court ruled on it, they allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion (again... thanks for farking us over Republicans). We're not making a lot of money right now and the way it looks is that we'll end up having to take the penalty because we can't afford the insurance that is offered. Back in Michigan, where we moved from, we would have gotten subsidies and finally gotten some insurance.

We should be in a much better position next year financially, but looks like it's going to be another year before we get some insurance.

I don't really blame the Democrats. They aren't the ones who have stood in the way of my family and I getting affordable health insurance.
 
2013-11-01 09:53:46 PM  
It really burns my ass to see so many morons getting indignant over the Federal Government protecting them from their own stupidity!

There was another story recently about another woman spouting off some garbage on tv, but when it turns out you look at her current health plan, it basically covered nothing! If she ever got sick, all she could afford was 1 day in the hospital and a half a Tylenol. She was upset about her current garbage plan being cancelled ($50 dollars/month) and having to go to a new plan ($156 dollars/month) that actually provided her with coverage.

I look at these people and I can't help but ask, ARE YOU A FARKING MORON?

First of all, why did you even BUY the $50 dollar a month plan - they are just taking you for a farking ride. You are giving them money and they are giving you NOTHING. You'd have been better off not even having the damn thing.

Secondly, this woman owned her own home. It never occurred to the idiot that her current level of non-coverage put her one single asset at extreme risk. The minute she got sick, that home was gone.

These people are basically stupid and bad with money. They also probably represent a lot of the GOP base (low educated older white people). Their unwavering loyalty to people who are actively trying to screw them over is mind boggling.

People are entitled to have issues with the ACA, but damn you if you don't understand that it is an earnest attempt to save lives and keep people from losing their homes. What did the GOP offer as an alternative to that?

Oh, right - NOTHING.
 
2013-11-01 10:09:48 PM  

JohnnyC: I'm in South Dakota. The governor here (a Republican) decided to opt out of the Medicaid expansion so there is no subsidies for my family and I. The Medicaid expansion was a part of the ACA, but when the Supreme Court ruled on it, they allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion (again... thanks for farking us over Republicans). We're not making a lot of money right now and the way it looks is that we'll end up having to take the penalty because we can't afford the insurance that is offered. Back in Michigan, where we moved from, we would have gotten subsidies and finally gotten some insurance.

We should be in a much better position next year financially, but looks like it's going to be another year before we get some insurance.

I don't really blame the Democrats. They aren't the ones who have stood in the way of my family and I getting affordable health insurance.


Something isn't adding up here.  I doubt you want to tell a Random Guy On The Internet what you and yours make.  But, the Medicaid expansion component (or lack thereof) is only something that matters if you're making less than the Federal Poverty Level ($11,490/$15,510/$19,530/$23,550 for 1/2/3/4 in your family).   If you're making at least 100% of the poverty line (or are willing to claim on your taxes that you are, anyway), but less than 4x that figure, you qualify for subsidies (if needed) that guarantee that Silver level insurance won't cost more than somewhere between 2% (at the poverty line) to 9.5% (at 399% of that line).   Even in South Dakota.  The only people that Pierre's recalcitrance is hurting are people making more than 25% of poverty but less than the poverty line.

If you are making less than the Federal Poverty Level, besides having my sympathy, you're almost certainly exempt from any tax penalty (there's a rather large exemption from the penalty for 'unaffordability').
 
2013-11-01 11:16:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Looks like the link is making the same claims as the lady.


FTA: "Better plans than she has now are available for her to purchase today, some of them for less money."
 
2013-11-01 11:29:11 PM  

Tyee: skozlaw:..... current premium, premium of the next closest plan, state, age and income so that all this can be validated with facts, please.

So you want transparency and numbers from a private person, posted on the interwebs, ...is that because you can't get info from your government... b/c that won't release its numbers information on sign ups?

You find an 8% increase in a Cadillac plan difficult to believe or understand?  Really? That increase to Cadillac plans is about the only thing Obama promised that is happening as promised.

I need a drink.  On to happy hour.  First round is on me, just like your health care.

$ more.


Odd. I have a Cadillac plan and I will be seeing only a mere $20/mo increase in my premiums. It goes from $75/mo. for a family plan to $95/mo. 90/10 after $1000 total annual deductible. I don't recall the OOP max but it is nowhere near some of the crazy ass ones I see that people have settled for under the previous system. $10 generic meds then $20 for formulary.

The increase has very little to do with Obamacare and more to do that we have really crappy union representation right now.
 
2013-11-01 11:39:07 PM  

Tyee: Stile4aly: Cadillac plans cost about $1K per month per person.

Re-signed up last month, October, going up 8%  $$.
I really can't understand why this is hard to believe.  It is what was promised and it really is consistent with what is going on in the market.


What was said about Cadillac plans is in regards to the taxation of those plans. That does not start until 2018. Your premiums were going to go up even if the ACA didn't exist.
 
2013-11-02 12:02:34 AM  

James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.


I'm pretty damned late to this thread but I have to ask, why does your relatively young and healthy uninsured ass have so much experience in emergency rooms? You weren't busy letting those mentally ill senior immigrants subsidize your care were you?
 
2013-11-02 12:05:04 AM  

urbangirl: James!: spman: Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience,

Good lord.

Just occurred to me -- if he's young and healthy and rarely has to see the doctor, exactly what is his "experience" with emergency rooms?


And naturally someone beat me to it *shakes fist*
 
2013-11-02 12:06:20 AM  
About time someone did some real journalism.  Liberal MSM media my ass.
 
2013-11-02 03:12:57 AM  
So under the ACA she gets a lower deductible, $2150 less in out of pocket expenses, unlimited care visits for either $5 or $25 more per visit, all for an extra $40 a month more than she's paying now... for the silver plan.

And it's even cheaper on the bronze plan.

And she didn't even bother to look on the Cal website before she opened her face.

Dumb b*tch.
 
2013-11-02 03:26:11 AM  

rewind2846: So under the ACA she gets a lower deductible, $2150 less in out of pocket expenses, unlimited care visits for either $5 or $25 more per visit, all for an extra $40 a month more than she's paying now... for the silver plan.

And it's even cheaper on the bronze plan.

And she didn't even bother to look on the Cal website before she opened her face.

Dumb b*tch.


But one day she will sell lots of houses and theoretically not need to use her insurance, and them Bam, farked in the butt by a big black c0ck.

The 0 is for 0bamacare.
 
2013-11-02 03:45:09 AM  

haemaker: Witty_Retort: kidgenius: I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

But wouldn't some percentage be eligible to be shifted over to the new, larger single-payer system?
The largest job-losses should, theoretically, come from CEO types and upper level management.
The government would need more pencil pushers, though.

Keeping a useless system in place because it keeps people employed is really lousy.  Yes, it will increase unemployment, yes, some of them will get jobs in the new system, but most won't.

It shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.


Turning medicine from a profession into a business was a terrible mistake to begin with.
 
2013-11-02 09:06:50 AM  

Corvus: Vicar It's about this letter you sent me regarding my insurance claim.
Devious Oh, yeah, yeah - well, you see, it's just that we're not...as yet...totally satisfied with the grounds of your claim.
Vicar But it says something about filling my mouth in with cement.
Devious Oh well, that's just insurance jargon, you know.
Vicar But my car was hit by a lorry while standing in the garage and you refuse to pay my claim.
Devious(rising and crossing to a filing cabinet) Oh well, reverend Morrison...in your policy...in your policy...(he open the drawer of the filing cabinet and takes out a shabby old sports jacket; he feels in the pocket and pulls out a crumbled dog-eared piece of paper then puts the coat back and shuts the filing cabinet)...here we are. It states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.
Vicar Oh dear.
Devious You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Neverpay' policy, which, you know, if you never claim is very worthwhile...but you had to claim, and, well, there it is.


At least the Vicar got a nude lady out of it.
 
2013-11-02 11:38:40 AM  

rewind2846: So under the ACA she gets a lower deductible, $2150 less in out of pocket expenses, unlimited care visits for either $5 or $25 more per visit, all for an extra $40 a month more than she's paying now... for the silver plan.

And it's even cheaper on the bronze plan.

And she didn't even bother to look on the Cal website before she opened her face.

Dumb b*tch.


So for an extra $480 a year in premiums and an extra $5 to $25 per visit more than she is paying now, she gets a lower maximum out of pocket on the off chance that disaster strikes................

Unless you are somebody who hits the maximum out of pocket every year due to some chronic disease, that really isn't that great a deal.  At $2,150 in lower deductibles you would have to hit the max once every 4 years just to break even.

That's not even taking into account that she would still have a $6,350 deductible instead of $8,500 so you're talking about hitting a very narrow window and still carrying a high deductible.  Paying an extra $500 a year to buy down the deductible from $8,000 to $6,000 is a losing bet for most people.

What do you know about this "dumb biatch's" health situation that makes opting for the lower deductible plan the smart choice?
 
2013-11-02 12:00:55 PM  

spman: InmanRoshi: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because emergency rooms are filled with people in the 18-45 range that were until that point totally healthy.

Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience, but typically the reason people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it or can't afford it. Just because you force them to have it isn't going to resolve the second problem.

You talk about Republicans trying to wipe out the middle class by making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what do you think this is? You think the person working three minimum wage jobs just to keep food in their mouth and a roof over their head can afford to pay anything extra a month for insurance? You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?


Which is where the subsidies and Medicaid expansion in the states that accepted came into play.  There are also certain cases where one can get gasp:  an exemption.
 
2013-11-02 12:09:01 PM  

spman: InmanRoshi: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

Because emergency rooms are filled with people in the 18-45 range that were until that point totally healthy.

Actually the typical emergency room is more full of the mentally ill, senior citizens, and immigrants than anything else in my experience, but typically the reason people don't have health insurance is because they don't want it or can't afford it. Just because you force them to have it isn't going to resolve the second problem.

You talk about Republicans trying to wipe out the middle class by making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what do you think this is? You think the person working three minimum wage jobs just to keep food in their mouth and a roof over their head can afford to pay anything extra a month for insurance? You think the guy who makes between $30,000 - $40,000 a year and barely scrapes by due to his modest standard of living can afford to pay between $250 - $350 a month?


Also I live in New York (the state) making a little over $30,000 a year.  I live with a roommate. I don't pay $250-$350 a month for insurance, currently it's  $130 before any of the incentive credits that my plan offers which I qualified for two of them this year, so I ended up paying $102 per month.  Next year, before any of my incentives credit I'd be paying $134 a month.  I know I'll qualify for one of the incentive credits my plan offers right off the bat, so that'll bring it down to $114 a month.  If I didn't have student loans, I could most definitely afford the $250 - $350 a month you're talking about.  Now people living in New York City might not be able to due to the higher cost of living, but I wanted to point out that you were either lying or grossly misinformed.
 
2013-11-02 12:46:30 PM  

haemaker: Witty_Retort: kidgenius: I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

But wouldn't some percentage be eligible to be shifted over to the new, larger single-payer system?
The largest job-losses should, theoretically, come from CEO types and upper level management.
The government would need more pencil pushers, though.

Keeping a useless system in place because it keeps people employed is really lousy.  Yes, it will increase unemployment, yes, some of them will get jobs in the new system, but most won't.

It shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.


Oh I agree. I was just trying to say that maybe the job loss won't be quite as bad as the guy I responded to.
But then last night I thought about salesmen and brokers and those guys would not have analogs in the new system.
But short term pain for massive long term gains is acceptable, to me at least.
 
2013-11-02 12:57:53 PM  

cchris_39: Unless you are somebody who hits the maximum out of pocket every year due to some chronic disease, that really isn't that great a deal.


That's a big FAIL right there. The chances of that happening are LESS because instead of being limited to only a few physician visits a year, she can actually go any time she feels bad. This increases the chance of catching something small before it turns into something big. That "something big" is the chronic disease you speak of, and it's part of why medical costs are so high in this country. Preventative care does indeed work, but only if you go to the doctor.

Not only that, if this dumb b*tch had a "chronic disease" her "insurance corporation" would find any excuse to drop her like a sh*tty diaper as soon as they could without the ACA's provision for pre-existing conditions. But then she would have accepted that, right? Probably, as long as the dismissal didn't have anything to do with that n****r in the White House.

Look - she lied, the lie was propagated by the right and by their propaganda arm FoxNoise, and she got caught with a simple web search. Those morons who believed her are not the type of people who ask questions, seek out facts, or think for themselves. They simply suck up what FoxNoise feeds them, and regurgitate it as if it were the gospel truth. I live in a town full of them, and sometimes it's like farking Idiocracy and I've just climbed out of the cryogenic chamber.

Farking madness.
 
2013-11-02 05:25:01 PM  

maweimer9: kidgenius: maweimer9: whidbey: The really funny thing about this is that we're not even talking about single payer or UHC.

I can't imagine the mountains of derp that are going to fall when we get to that point in our society.

It's going to be tragicomic.

I see single payer thrown around a lot on Fark (and else where).  Ideally, I agree on the concept and think it would provide the most efficient health care experience for the patient.

I think that is what draws so many people towards it is the experience for the patient.  I think what a lot of people do not understand is just how big the insurance industry is and how many people it employs.  I don't have any data (and frankly, I don't think many companies do either), but if you analyze the life cycle of a claim I would guess that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions that depend on it.

For any one particular claim, there are 100's, if not 1000's of people who have touched the technical system, the administrative piece and even the actual working of the claim.  In other words, the politician who suggests single payer and finds a way to pass it, would most likely have to do it in his/her second term with the House and Senate on his/her side.  There's no way that's first term legislation given the amount of real job loss it would cause.

I believe this is a major factor why President Obama did not suggest it.  Well, this and the fact that he thought the right would champion with him given that it was their plan.  But I can almost guarantee that it weighed in the decision as well as not fighting as hard for the public option.

I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

Ultimately you wouldn't lose 100% due to supplemental coverage plans, etc., but you'd only retain 10% of those employees most likely. It's a serious hit to the economy, but would be better in the long run. Plus, if we as ...

Glad you brought this up!  The thing is, you're not just dealing with those few million people.  For example, those big insurance companies outsource claim processing of other departments (like dental, vision) to other specialty companies that have systems better suited to process those claims.  So there's those jobs that are gone now.

Then you have to think of the surrounding businesses like restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores that will take a hit from less traffic.  Macro economically speaking, losing that many jobs that fast would be devastating.

Then you have to remember that these companies have lobbyists with huge pockets making sure that they don't go single payer.  Point is (and again I'm not against it philosophically), it would take a LONG time to recover.


Sigh. Nearly all of that work will still have to be done. The jobs won't just disappear.
 
2013-11-02 05:34:45 PM  

Smackledorfer: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?

I answered those questions when you asked them the last time.

Are you incapable of learning?


Just ignore him. His sole purpose is to sidetrack and distract.
 
2013-11-02 05:42:11 PM  

o5iiawah: InmanRoshi: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x617]

They keep their plan, but many employers are requiring more individual contribution.  Where I work, the increase in individual contribution was 50% over last year.


Oh, this one's new! Based on your posting history I am forced to assume this is a) unrelated to ACA, b)exaggerated, c) due to a change in coverage, d)all, or several of the above.
 
2013-11-02 05:53:35 PM  

Mike_1962: Smackledorfer: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?

I answered those questions when you asked them the last time.

Are you incapable of learning?

Just ignore him. His sole purpose is to sidetrack and distract.


I know. He's good at it though :/
 
2013-11-02 05:55:47 PM  

jso2897: haemaker: Witty_Retort: kidgenius: I looked at the numbers of some of the largest insurers. If they all went under tomorrow, you'd be looking at a few million jobs lost in an instant. That's a ton.

But wouldn't some percentage be eligible to be shifted over to the new, larger single-payer system?
The largest job-losses should, theoretically, come from CEO types and upper level management.
The government would need more pencil pushers, though.

Keeping a useless system in place because it keeps people employed is really lousy.  Yes, it will increase unemployment, yes, some of them will get jobs in the new system, but most won't.

It shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.

Turning medicine from a profession into a business was a terrible mistake to begin with.


YES! Why would you DO that?
 
2013-11-02 05:59:26 PM  

Smackledorfer: Mike_1962: Smackledorfer: BojanglesPaladin: ecl: You can gamble with bankruptcy all you want, but when you can't pay your hospital bills everyone else has to foot the bill.

What are the numbers on this? What percentage of healthcare provided does not get paid for?

I answered those questions when you asked them the last time.

Are you incapable of learning?

Just ignore him. His sole purpose is to sidetrack and distract.

I know. He's good at it though :/


Heh.
 
2013-11-02 07:16:34 PM  

Serious Black: spman: Here the thing though. If you fall within that 18-45 range, are totally healthy, have no risk for any hereditary illness, and never get sick besides the occasional cold, why should you be forced into buying insurance in the first place? Why should you be forced to buy a plan you don't want that offers features you don't need and won't use and pay an extra $40 a month for them?

You won't fall within that 18-45 range and be totally healthy forever. Either you'll get hit by a bus or develop cancer while still in that age range and spend a ton of money treating those things, or you'll grow old and THEN get hit by a bus or develop cancer and spend a ton of money treating those things.


I had my appendix out at 44. shiat happens, no matter how old you are.
 
Displayed 415 of 415 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report