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 153
    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»



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

2013-11-01 12:22:59 PM  
9 votes:

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


pretty much the entire republican platform.
2013-11-01 02:40:26 PM  
7 votes:

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 01:08:21 PM  
7 votes:
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 11:48:34 AM  
7 votes:
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 02:23:38 PM  
6 votes:
pbs.twimg.com
2013-11-01 01:46:16 PM  
6 votes:
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 05:55:10 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:37:17 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:14:23 PM  
5 votes:
It doesn't matter. No one who believed her in the first place will be swayed by anything this reporter writes.
2013-11-01 12:09:18 PM  
5 votes:

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 04:06:42 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:30:51 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:16:55 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:08:18 PM  
4 votes:
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 01:38:59 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:46:46 PM  
4 votes:
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 12:45:29 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:34:44 PM  
4 votes:
I wonder how much the Republican PACs are paying to DDOS healthcare.gov.
2013-11-02 03:12:57 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-11-01 08:22:19 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:33:40 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:36:13 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:14:23 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:31:35 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:25:35 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:44:33 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:36:40 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:32:08 PM  
3 votes:
2013-11-01 02:15:52 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:02:08 PM  
3 votes:

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

2013-11-01 01:10:03 PM  
3 votes:
Another instance of the right crying wolf.
2013-11-01 12:27:17 PM  
3 votes:
pinstripebindi.files.wordpress.com
2013-11-01 12:04:17 PM  
3 votes:
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 11:29:11 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:53:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:02:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:20:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:19:15 PM  
2 votes:

Tyee: I'm paying more


Most of us have been paying more, every single year.
2013-11-01 04:18:39 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:10:05 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:08:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:06:10 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:01:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:54:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:48:45 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:29:39 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:19:51 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:51:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:50:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:48:18 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-11-01 02:47:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:44:24 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:43:34 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:43:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:41:06 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:30:39 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:29:37 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:28:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:26:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:22:23 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:19:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:53:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:32:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:27:34 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-11-02 05:42:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:26:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:06:20 AM  
1 votes:
About time someone did some real journalism.  Liberal MSM media my ass.
2013-11-02 12:02:34 AM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-11-01 11:39:07 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-01 11:16:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:50:06 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:30:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:37:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:30:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:19:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:05:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:10:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:08:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:05:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:54:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:12:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:11:34 PM  
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-01 04:39:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:38:17 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-01 04:34:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:26:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:23:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:23:01 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-01 04:22:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:21:59 PM  
1 votes:
I have a Lexus plan.  It's like a regular plan, but it has more chrome.
2013-11-01 04:20:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:19:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:11:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:03:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:01:31 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:59:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:39:52 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:38:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:38:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:36:37 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:33:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:31:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:28:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:20:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:13:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:12:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:59:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:59:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:58:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:52:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:52:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:50:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:50:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:49:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:49:27 PM  
1 votes:
spman: [words]

Sure you can derp, but can you herp the derp when sh*t gets real?
2013-11-01 02:49:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:48:42 PM  
1 votes:

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.
ecl
2013-11-01 02:48:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:47:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:47:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:46:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:46:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:45:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:45:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:44:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:40:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:39:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:38:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:37:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:37:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:34:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:34:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:34:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:33:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:33:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:32:11 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:31:59 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:31:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:26:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:24:13 PM  
1 votes:
The sad truth is that Cavallaro has been very poorly served by the health insurance industry

youdontsay.jpg
2013-11-01 02:23:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:20:45 PM  
1 votes:
I, for one, am shocked that someone would be uninformed about ACA.
2013-11-01 02:19:55 PM  
1 votes:
Maria Barteromo isn't an intelligent news reporter who delves deep into issues and prepares meticulously for interviews?

Imagine my shock.
2013-11-01 02:18:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:10:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:58:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:38:05 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:12:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:38:05 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:35:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:18 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 153 of 153 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report