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.

(The Weekly Standard)   And our next Obamacare success story comes to us from North Dakota where after one month, 30 people have signed up. 35,000 were dropped by their insurers as well but subby is a glass half full kind of guy   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 113
    More: Obvious, obamacare, North Dakota, Blue Cross Blue Shield, insurance companies, health insurance, glass  
•       •       •

489 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2013 at 11:43 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-11 11:03:32 AM
They're all better off. Obviously their plans sucked. They should be thankful.
 
2013-11-11 11:12:54 AM
Some people are apparently dumb enough to believe that people are barred from getting new plans from their current insurers.
 
2013-11-11 11:33:33 AM
I'm not clicking that link, but I find it hard to believe only 30 people have signed up.
 
2013-11-11 11:37:20 AM
People from North Dakota don't get in a hurry like you city folk do.
 
2013-11-11 11:39:03 AM
If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.
 
m00
2013-11-11 11:46:07 AM
Obamacare worked perfectly. Insurance companies are making a fortune.
 
2013-11-11 11:46:17 AM
Our next non-sequitor comes from a subby who blames Obama for insurance companies' bad business practices.
 
2013-11-11 11:47:56 AM
Obamacare is a convenient excuse for a lot of companies to dick over their employees. F*ck the whole lot of every insurance and part time labor assholes. Every ACA failure that points a finger pisses me off more. I am even more cynical due to how much private companies are being douchebags about providing healthcare to employees.
 
2013-11-11 11:52:41 AM
They're not cancelling plans, they're recalling a defective product.

I imagine today's Republicans "independent libertarians" would be protesting for the right to drive around in their Corvairs eating tainted chicken fajitas and throwing lawn darts out the windows without government interference.

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-11 11:53:04 AM

FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.


If 35,000 people signed up for what was probably catastrophic insurance only, asking them to realize they were being hosed is a tall horse to ride.

/or some other folksy plain state saying
 
2013-11-11 11:53:18 AM
Can't we just skip all these stories and say everyone who lives in a state that opted not to run their own exchange are all experiencing stuff like this? I don't think we need 10 articles about every state that decided to dick over their constituents to 'stick it to the libs' by not doing their damn jobs and conceding their holy state's rights to the ebil federal gubmint.
 
2013-11-11 11:53:18 AM
Bunch of Gunga Din motherfarkers in this thread.  Damn.
 
2013-11-11 11:54:52 AM

cram_hole: Can't we just skip all these stories and say everyone who lives in a state that opted not to run their own exchange are all experiencing stuff like this? I don't think we need 10 articles about every state that decided to dick over their constituents to 'stick it to the libs' by not doing their damn jobs and conceding their holy state's rights to the ebil federal gubmint.


welcometofark.jpg
 
2013-11-11 11:55:19 AM
If you don't like it, Call your Governor. He/She has the power to correct it. More than likely, they are deliberately making you suffer to make a larger political point about the ineffectiveness of the government (which they control)
 
2013-11-11 11:57:00 AM

kimwim: I'm not clicking that link, but I find it hard to believe only 30 people have signed up.


I know right? That's like twice the population of North Dakota.
 
2013-11-11 11:58:44 AM

FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.


so if my insurance plan doesn't "Cover adult children up to age 26" and now has to drop me. How is that an inferior product if i was never going to have an adult child up to 26 years of age on my plan. Also how are they ripping me off?
 
2013-11-11 11:59:22 AM
Brian Beutler did a nice piece on the latest shaft the insurance companies are using to fark the consumers: cancel existing plans and default customers to a new plan that costs more while never mentioning the exchanges or Medicare expansions. People's natural inertia works against them, they pay more and I will give you three guesses who gets the blame.

I'm on my phone, so you'll have to google the article yourself. Good piece.
 
2013-11-11 11:59:50 AM
I don't understand why there aren't just really cheap and basic disaster plans that cover major problems like cancer, but not routine BS like doctor visits or prescriptions.

It's incredibly stupid that I don't have such an option.
 
2013-11-11 12:00:05 PM
Jeez Fark, can you find another 10 submissions telling us how much of a failure the website is?   I'm not convinced yet, but I do know that I will never vote for Obama again.  You did convince me of that

*eye roll*
/must be a slow news day
//how many submission have we had on this topic now?
///it's all very boring at this point
 
2013-11-11 12:00:37 PM
Let me take a wild guess that North Dakota is one of those bootstrappy states who decided not to set up a state exchange in hopes of doing what they could to gum up the Affordable Care Act. Being one of the states who opted out of keeping control of their own marketplace while the GOP denied resources to the feds so they could pick up the slack on the federal side in a coordinated effort to try and sabotage healthcare for millions of Americans.

/googles

Oh look, how predictable.
 
2013-11-11 12:01:14 PM
This story has brought to light something that really is important:

www.united-states-flag.com

North Dakota's flag is full of suck
 
2013-11-11 12:02:57 PM
More like "Our next trolling butthurt headline comes to you from subby, who was glad the Republicans downgraded the US's credit rating and put a bunch of needed services at risk when they shut down the government over ACA."
 
2013-11-11 12:04:39 PM

whither_apophis: FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.

If 35,000 people signed up for what was probably catastrophic insurance only, asking them to realize they were being hosed is a tall horse to ride.

/or some other folksy plain state saying


I thought it was responsible if me to throw away $100something a month on coverage I'm not using so that I could continue to save some of my income and have spending money every month.

Apparently that was incorrect and the good and proper thing to do is give absolutely all the money I make but had not been spending for insurance I'm not using.

I make enough to not qualify for subsidies and work for a company too small to be impacted by the ACA, but the fact remains that I'm going to be giving a tremendous chunk of my income to insurance companies for an entirely minimal benefit. If it were single payer, fine. THAT is worth the money. But not this in-between "You still have to pay the lion's share of any real bill AND a huge monthly bill just for being alive." bullshiat.
 
2013-11-11 12:06:14 PM

Skleenar: This story has brought to light something that really is important:

[www.united-states-flag.com image 850x850]

North Dakota's flag is full of suck


Oh come on, that's actually a 5th grader's MS Paint project right?
 
2013-11-11 12:06:35 PM
Just look at yourselves trying to polish this turd.
 
2013-11-11 12:06:55 PM

Waldo Pepper: FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.

so if my insurance plan doesn't "Cover adult children up to age 26" and now has to drop me. How is that an inferior product if i was never going to have an adult child up to 26 years of age on my plan. Also how are they ripping me off?



Are you mad because you have to sign-up for insurance again or that is costs more? There are so many variables to this but anecdotal evidence I've seen is that people are being inconvenienced and  they want to cry about it.
 
2013-11-11 12:07:20 PM

lockers: Obamacare is a convenient excuse for a lot of companies to dick over their employees. F*ck the whole lot of every insurance and part time labor assholes. Every ACA failure that points a finger pisses me off more. I am even more cynical due to how much private companies are being douchebags about providing healthcare to employees.


This! Companies expect a whole lot out of their employees these days, especially service level part timers, for jobs that include: "be flexible" (aka: "Leave your schedule completely open for us to call you when we need you even though we only give you 20 hours or less a week, but whenever you as the employee need time off for a doctors appointment or some family issue can not be allowed, work that day or your fired!"), working a job where even selling one item is enough to pay your wage for that day and beyond, jobs that force you to buy the companies clothes (Express, The Gap, etc) every new season which comes out of your own paycheck, companies that feign on giving you healthcare benefits despite their near endless profits but pay you low enough that you qualify for government issued medicare (looking at you especially, Wal-Mart) which comes out of everyone's wallets even if you don't shop at that company, and most of all firing you when you make "too much" money for their own tastes (e.g. Circuit City, Home Depot, and others) which (Thank G-d!) actually hurts the company when customers realize they're not getting the same quality of employees they had before the purge.

If companies would just look at companies like CostCo and see you can make a profit and still treat and pay your employees well, then it wouldn't be so bad anymore for all of us, instead we need government to use rule of law to force these companies to stop using fake "Free Market" tactics (e.g. socialized risk, privatized profits) to make a buck off of taxpayer expense.
 
2013-11-11 12:07:32 PM
Ah. A man that has insights into the future and knows he will never be ill. Were we all so lucky, my good man. Were we all.
 
2013-11-11 12:08:10 PM

doczoidberg: I don't understand why there aren't just really cheap and basic disaster plans that cover major problems like cancer, but not routine BS like doctor visits or prescriptions.

It's incredibly stupid that I don't have such an option.


Because when you need physical therapy or penicillin, you have to pay out of pocket, and if you can't pay, *I* end up paying. I'd rather we just get single payer.
 
2013-11-11 12:10:11 PM
So when are they going to show the website failing for a state that actually has people in it?  Because I'm all but certain North Dakota is just populated with walruses and penguins pretending to be human beings.

/they're called Canadians sometimes
//won't catch me driving there to verify anything either
 
2013-11-11 12:11:26 PM

likefunbutnot: I thought it was responsible if me to throw away $100something a month on coverage I'm not using


until you are using it. And then you're farked, because it doesn't cover anything.
 
2013-11-11 12:12:42 PM
there are 35,030 people in North Dakota?
 
2013-11-11 12:15:04 PM
Considering only 35 people actually live in North Dakota, this sounds like a dashing success!
 
2013-11-11 12:16:26 PM

sauwar: Waldo Pepper: FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.

so if my insurance plan doesn't "Cover adult children up to age 26" and now has to drop me. How is that an inferior product if i was never going to have an adult child up to 26 years of age on my plan. Also how are they ripping me off?


Are you mad because you have to sign-up for insurance again or that is costs more? There are so many variables to this but anecdotal evidence I've seen is that people are being inconvenienced and  they want to cry about it.


I was countering the comment  If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off. This appears to be the argument from those white knighting Obama's statement about your plan not being cancelled.  

Why is it assumed that is a person signs up for a plan that doesn't meet 100% of the governments requirements then that plan must be a ripoff.  If one of the requirements is your child has to be allowed to get coverage under your plan, this is a stupid requirement for those who don't have kids, their kids are all over 26 or they dont' feel the need to pay for their adult childern's health insurance. 

Seems to me to be a ripoff product if it requires me to cover more than what a person has no need.
 
2013-11-11 12:16:52 PM

kimwim: I'm not clicking that link, but I find it hard to believe only 30 people have signed up.


I got furthe rusing Zombo.com than Healthcare.gov when I tried.
 
2013-11-11 12:18:46 PM

FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.


If your old plan had 99.9% of what Obamacare demands but left off, say, maternity coverage because you're either too old or a single male, then it's still gone. This blanket pronouncement that whatever you had was inadequate is just attempted cover now that Obamacare's wheels are coming off and it's crashing into the stands and killing the spectators. People can see the falsity of the "your old coverage sucked and we're doing you a favor," narrative and aren't buying it.
 
2013-11-11 12:24:17 PM

what_now: likefunbutnot: I thought it was responsible if me to throw away $100something a month on coverage I'm not using

until you are using it. And then you're farked, because it doesn't cover anything.


I spent nearly all of last week not getting in car accidents, but my car insurance company insists that I pay them anyway!  This "insurance" thing is a scam, I tell ya!
 
2013-11-11 12:24:40 PM

Waldo Pepper: sauwar: Waldo Pepper: FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.

so if my insurance plan doesn't "Cover adult children up to age 26" and now has to drop me. How is that an inferior product if i was never going to have an adult child up to 26 years of age on my plan. Also how are they ripping me off?


Are you mad because you have to sign-up for insurance again or that is costs more? There are so many variables to this but anecdotal evidence I've seen is that people are being inconvenienced and  they want to cry about it.

I was countering the comment  If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off. This appears to be the argument from those white knighting Obama's statement about your plan not being cancelled.

Why is it assumed that is a person signs up for a plan that doesn't meet 100% of the governments requirements then that plan must be a ripoff.  If one of the requirements is your child has to be allowed to get coverage under your plan, this is a stupid requirement for those who don't have kids, their kids are all over 26 or they dont' feel the need to pay for their adult childern's health insurance.

Seems to me to be a ripoff product if it requires me to cover more than what a person has no need.


Because insurance providers have always offered a la carte plans where you can just pick the shiat you want and not pay for the rest?

Wait, no they haven't.  Their plans have always been vague policies set up by tiers, and you're just nitpicking because of some requirements you'll never use.  Because your needs are the only ones that matter.
 
2013-11-11 12:26:12 PM

Lochsteppe: what_now: likefunbutnot: I thought it was responsible if me to throw away $100something a month on coverage I'm not using

until you are using it. And then you're farked, because it doesn't cover anything.

I spent nearly all of last week not getting in car accidents, but my car insurance company insists that I pay them anyway!  This "insurance" thing is a scam, I tell ya!


i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-11 12:26:41 PM
You know what else is destined to fail? 2014 calendars - hardly anybody has bought one yet.
 
m00
2013-11-11 12:32:18 PM
I think the Democrats are making a mistake by defending the ACA using the strategy that "well your old insurance plan was crap, trust the the government to know what you need better than you do... and then make you pay for it." It's exactly the caricature that Republicans like to paint, and the Democrats seem to be trying really hard to become that.

I still say the Democrats should have just passed state-run health care for all that offers basic/emergency coverage, and let the premium plans exist the way they are now for people who want them. And before anyone says "but but but Republicans!" I once again point out that the ACA passed with 0 Republican votes in either house. So Democrats collectively had the numbers to pass whatever they wanted.
 
2013-11-11 12:33:33 PM

mongbiohazard: Let me take a wild guess that North Dakota is one of those bootstrappy states who decided not to set up a state exchange in hopes of doing what they could to gum up the Affordable Care Act. Being one of the states who opted out of keeping control of their own marketplace while the GOP denied resources to the feds so they could pick up the slack on the federal side in a coordinated effort to try and sabotage healthcare for millions of Americans.
/googles
Oh look, how predictable.


Heh. We got them beat.

In December 2012, Montana's elected State Auditor Monica Lindeen (D) confirmed that the federal government would operate a health insurance exchange in Montana. The previous year, two proposed bills (HB620 and HB124) to establish a health insurance exchange in Montana failed. Instead, the legislature passed SB 228, a bill that would prohibit the creation of a health insurance exchange as proscribed in the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Yeah, the state sure showed US. Now excuse me while I go die in a ditch.
 
2013-11-11 12:34:46 PM

jjorsett: If your old plan had 99.9% of what Obamacare demands but left off, say, maternity coverage because you're either too old or a single male, then it's still gone. This blanket pronouncement that whatever you had was inadequate is just attempted cover now that Obamacare's wheels are coming off and it's crashing into the stands and killing the spectators. People can see the falsity of the "your old coverage sucked and we're doing you a favor," narrative and aren't buying it.


No. If your insurance provider didn't change it, then it doesn't have to pass new standards.

Why did your old plan change?
 
2013-11-11 12:36:24 PM

Lord_Baull: Our next non-sequitor comes from a subby who blames Obama for insurance companies' bad business practices.


I'm waiting for '0bama' to be blamed for the policies that insurers started under Dubya (not related to Dubya or his fault) that are now starting to cost the insurance companies profits.

I'm going to be laughing in a few years when Republicans are constantly harping in democrats for calling it Obamacare. They'll be screaming how the name is really the ACA and that Ma0Bama started calling it Obamacare to hog all the credit.
 
2013-11-11 12:36:53 PM
Wyalt Derp:
You know what else is destined to fail? 2014 calendars - hardly anybody has bought one yet.

Don't tell the Obama folks - we'll have "The Affordable Calendar Act of 2014," and we'll end up all having to buy 523 day calendars with 17 months on them.
 
2013-11-11 12:37:19 PM

jjorsett: If your old plan had 99.9% of what Obamacare demands but left off, say, maternity coverage because you're either too old or a single male, then it's still gone. This blanket pronouncement that whatever you had was inadequate is just attempted cover now that Obamacare's wheels are coming off and it's crashing into the stands and killing the spectators. People can see the falsity of the "your old coverage sucked and we're doing you a favor," narrative and aren't buying it.


And what's forcing the insurance company to cancel the plan, instead of fixing the problem?

In your example, a plan doesn't cover maternity.  So the insurance company changes the plan to cover maternity, increases the rate the $2 a month or what the fark ever maternity insurance costs across the whole pool, and leaves your shiat intact.

They have not been doing this.  They have been sending out cancellation notices and saying "if you do nothing, we will switch you to [much more expensive plan] automatically", without mentioning the cheaper, better plans on the exchanges where they're eligible for subsidies.
 
2013-11-11 12:37:23 PM
You guys are so funny.
 
2013-11-11 12:37:23 PM

cram_hole: Can't we just skip all these stories and say everyone who lives in a state that opted not to run their own exchange are all experiencing stuff like this? I don't think we need 10 articles about every state that decided to dick over their constituents to 'stick it to the libs' by not doing their damn jobs and conceding their holy state's rights to the ebil federal gubmint.


Shh, don't ruin the conservative outrage narrative.
 
2013-11-11 12:38:59 PM

cirby: Wyalt Derp:
You know what else is destined to fail? 2014 calendars - hardly anybody has bought one yet.

Don't tell the Obama folks - we'll have "The Affordable Calendar Act of 2014," and we'll end up all having to buy 523 day calendars with 17 months on them.


Don't tell Fox News - it originally had 365 days and 12 months, then the Republican amendments started rolling in.
 
2013-11-11 12:40:35 PM

quiotu: Waldo Pepper: sauwar: Waldo Pepper: FloydA: If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off.  Get a new plan, and while you're at it, see if you can qualify for some of the subsidies that are now available.

so if my insurance plan doesn't "Cover adult children up to age 26" and now has to drop me. How is that an inferior product if i was never going to have an adult child up to 26 years of age on my plan. Also how are they ripping me off?


Are you mad because you have to sign-up for insurance again or that is costs more? There are so many variables to this but anecdotal evidence I've seen is that people are being inconvenienced and  they want to cry about it.

I was countering the comment  If your previous plan was so bad that it doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and has to be canceled because it is an inferior product, then your insurance company was ripping you off. This appears to be the argument from those white knighting Obama's statement about your plan not being cancelled.

Why is it assumed that is a person signs up for a plan that doesn't meet 100% of the governments requirements then that plan must be a ripoff.  If one of the requirements is your child has to be allowed to get coverage under your plan, this is a stupid requirement for those who don't have kids, their kids are all over 26 or they dont' feel the need to pay for their adult childern's health insurance.

Seems to me to be a ripoff product if it requires me to cover more than what a person has no need.

Because insurance providers have always offered a la carte plans where you can just pick the shiat you want and not pay for the rest?

Wait, no they haven't.  Their plans have always been vague policies set up by tiers, and you're just nitpicking because of some requirements you'll never use.  Because your needs are the only ones that matter.


still doesn't change the fact that a not every policy that does not meet the new overreaching guidelines is an inferior product.    Why should the government tell any insurance company that every policy they sell has to cover childern up to 26 years of age or that they can't offer a man a policy that doesn't cover pregnacy
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report