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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 15 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report