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  
•       •       •

8358 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2013 at 2:10 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 415 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report