Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Fox News)   Obamacare fan quoted by President discovers that she can't afford it after Washington state web site gets told there should have been math   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, obamacare, Susteren, Washington, Erik Smith, doctor's visit  
•       •       •

1121 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 9:58 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-19 12:37:16 PM  

monoski: FarkedOver: I love how conservatives are all of the sudden concerned about people not being covered any more.  How about we just institute single payer health care so that this won't be an issue any more?

They never pretend to care about that first part, the focus is on "Obama lied and people died"
--Rand Paul


Basically. Single payer universal healthcare is what we should have, but the very same conservatives whining about this are the ones that blocked anything but the emasculated version of the ACA (remember, this was meant to be more comprehensive, but after years of fighting it, what we have was the version that made it through Congress.)

Fark you, conservatives.
 
2013-11-19 12:38:43 PM  

SlothB77: FarkedOver: I love how conservatives are all of the sudden concerned about people not being covered any more.  How about we just institute single payer health care so that this won't be an issue any more?

We voted to repeal this bill 50 times to try to prevent this suffering.  We took this bill to the Supreme Court.  Don't sit here and tell me we didn't care and we didn't do anything about it.  Republicans did everything they could to prevent the suffering that is now wreaking havoc across this great nation.


There were already millions that could not afford or even purchase at any price health insurance. What was your alternative fix that was superior to Obamacare?
 
2013-11-19 12:39:58 PM  

lennavan: You already bought insurance -- it cost you $95.  You bought catastrophic insurance from the government.


Huh? You are not getting anything in exchange for whatever tax penalty you pay.  If you go to the ER for care you're still getting a bill.  And if you can afford to pay it, you'll have to pay it.  If you can't afford to pay it you get to declare bankruptcy.  That's exactly the same as before the ACA's tax penalties kicked in.

The tax penalty is just that, a penalty.  If you choose to pay the penalty you don't get anything in return.     It's an incentive (like the tax subsidies) to get people to go out and purchase insurance.  And it's woefully inadequate to the task for most people.  If people can't afford $400 a month for insurance, a $400 a year income tax penalty won't fix that.  Which is why it's going to double in the future.  Even doubled, it will still not be an adequate incentive for most people.

lennavan: But yeah, the rest of the healthy people that did not already have coverage and are too stupid to get insurance, making the teenager bet that nothing can hurt them, will indeed have to pay the government for catastrophic only coverage.


Again, your either misinformed or misrepresenting.  Not sure which.  Here's the info on catastrophic coverage under the ACA.   https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-buy-a-catastrophic-plan/ .  It costs money.  It's not free.

And not buying insurance is not a stupid bet for most people.  By definition, most people will pay far more for insurance over the course of their lives then they will spend on medical care.  For most people, insurance is a bad bet.   Under the ACA it returns an average of 85 cents on the dollar (80 cents on the dollar in the small ground and individual market).  You'll get a better return on the roulette wheel.

If you don't have any assets to shield from a bankruptcy, then there's not much to lose by not having medical insurance.  If you have a ton of assets and can afford to self insure, that's the best route to go.  If you're somewhere in the middle then it actually make senses to have insurance, depending on your risk tolerance.  The rest should pay out of pocket as needed.

For example,  I have a slightly positive net worth that I would prefer not to have wiped out by unexpected medical expenses.  I can easily absorb $10,000 in unexpected costs.   More than that and it starts to get problematic.  Therefore, I would prefer to keep a low cost catastrophic plan that limits my maximum out of pocket on emergencies to about $10,000 and allows me to pay for routine care as needed.  Of course, I can't get a plan like that under the ACA, because Obama calls it 'substandard' even though it makes perfect sense for me.

lennavan: Except of course for the healthy people who couldn't afford it before.  Or the healthy people that are also young that can now be on their parents health insurance plans.


Except of course that as the linked story shows, people who couldn't previously afford insurance aren't suddenly able to afford it just because the ACA passed.  They still can't afford it.  But now they get to pay a tax penalty too.  Good deal for them.

And young people can now stay on their parents coverage until their 26.  In other news, the Federal Government announces that there is indeed such a thing as a free lunch.  What you call "allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance" can also be called "forcing insurance companies to cover people from ages 18 to 26".  That has a cost associated with it.  And the cost will simply be shifted from one place to another.  Because it turns out that there's no such thing as a free lunch after all.  So instead of having kids age 18 to 26 without insurance, we'll have parents with higher insurance costs (but you should be grateful for the higher costs, because you're getting better stuff, even if you can't afford it.)
 
2013-11-19 12:40:50 PM  

Karac: The other article both of us provided links for explains that (although it's not copy/pastable).  Her income is low enough she can enroll the kid in medicaid - BUT - doing that means she can't count him for a tax credit.  Which puts her above that single adult cutoff of $45,000.


Thanks for the information.
 
2013-11-19 12:48:34 PM  

SlothB77: Republicans did everything they could to prevent the suffering that is now wreaking havoc across this great nation.


Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.
 
2013-11-19 12:57:50 PM  

Talondel: forcing insurance companies to cover people from ages 18 to 26".


You have to do an awful lot of twisting to get to that statement.  Insurance companies are not forced to offer family plans.

Talondel: That has a cost associated with it.


Paid for by the policy holder.  The world is not so poutrageous as you make it to be.

Talondel: So instead of having kids age 18 to 26 without insurance, we'll have parents with higher insurance costs


There is not a single parent in the entire country that is forced to purchase a family plan.
 
2013-11-19 12:58:12 PM  

jst3p: SlothB77: FarkedOver: I love how conservatives are all of the sudden concerned about people not being covered any more.  How about we just institute single payer health care so that this won't be an issue any more?

We voted to repeal this bill 50 times to try to prevent this suffering.  We took this bill to the Supreme Court.  Don't sit here and tell me we didn't care and we didn't do anything about it.  Republicans did everything they could to prevent the suffering that is now wreaking havoc across this great nation.

There were already millions that could not afford or even purchase at any price health insurance. What was your alternative fix that was superior to Obamacare?


Don't get sick, or, if you do, die quickly.

Heaven forbid they try make a good faith effort to fix the problems bill, rather than simply repeal. They're proud of trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater 50 times. Who cares who gets hurt as long as the dems look bad?
 
2013-11-19 01:13:01 PM  
It feels like they GOP is having a race against the facts/reality.  How did that work out for them in 2012?
 
2013-11-19 01:16:40 PM  

mrshowrules: It feels like they GOP is having a race against the facts/reality. How did that work out for them in 2012?


Pretty well, from my point of view!
 
2013-11-19 01:29:28 PM  

Johnny_Whistle: Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.


Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

mrshowrules: It feels like they GOP is having a race against the facts/reality.  How did that work out for them in 2012?



Your tenacity to keep displaying mendacity is such a curiosity.
 
2013-11-19 01:32:14 PM  

Mrbogey: Johnny_Whistle: Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

mrshowrules: It feels like they GOP is having a race against the facts/reality.  How did that work out for them in 2012?


Your tenacity to keep displaying mendacity is such a curiosity.


Are you obliquely referring to the reform malpractice drivel?
 
2013-11-19 01:35:34 PM  

HeartlineTwist: Mrbogey: Johnny_Whistle: Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

mrshowrules: It feels like they GOP is having a race against the facts/reality.  How did that work out for them in 2012?


Your tenacity to keep displaying mendacity is such a curiosity.

Are you obliquely referring to the reform malpractice drivel?


Tort reform!  Sell across state lines!  Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!

And the three bubble flow chart we've all come to know and love.
 
2013-11-19 01:43:46 PM  

Mrbogey: Johnny_Whistle: Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

mrshowrules: It feels like they GOP is having a race against the facts/reality.  How did that work out for them in 2012?


Your tenacity to keep displaying mendacity is such a curiosity.


I disagree.  The success of Obamacare will be whether it reduces the number of uninsured, protects consumers and whether it contains the growth of health care costs.

It will take years to know that.  That why the GOP is in a panic (race) to call Obamacare a failure.  They are sprinting in a marathon.
 
2013-11-19 02:04:00 PM  

lennavan: Talondel: forcing insurance companies to cover people from ages 18 to 26".

You have to do an awful lot of twisting to get to that statement.  Insurance companies are not forced to offer family plans.

Talondel: That has a cost associated with it.

Paid for by the policy holder.  The world is not so poutrageous as you make it to be.

Talondel: So instead of having kids age 18 to 26 without insurance, we'll have parents with higher insurance costs

There is not a single parent in the entire country that is forced to purchase a family plan.


Let me get this straight.  Your original argument was that one of the benefits of the ACA is that young people can now stay on their parents health insurance.  Let's quote you, just to be sure:

lennavan: Or the healthy people that are also young that can now be on their parents health insurance plans.


When I point out that this isn't really a net benefit to the family, because all it does is move costs around, you defend it by pointing out that the benefit isn't forced on people.  Um, if you want the benefit you touted (parent's coverage extended to kids) then you have to have a family plan.  If you don't have a family plan, then you don't get the benefit you just claimed was so awesome.  So uh, yeah.  Good argument there.

So to reiterate: Anyone who gets this benefit gets it because it's been forced on the insurance company, who will in turn force the costs on those who pay the premiums.

Nothing you said does anything to address the point.  Kids aren't getting 'free' coverage (because there is no such thing).  All that is happening is that the cost is being shifted from one group to another.
 
2013-11-19 03:04:15 PM  
http://www.wahbexchange.org/index.php?cID=472

So assuming she makes 50K (she says she makes less than that) and she is 48
and she has 1 dependent child under the age of 25 (says he is a teen)
then she does qualify for a subsidy of 144$ per month
without that the silver plan would be around 524$ per month
after it would be 380$
If she went with a bronze plan it would be less.
she would be smart to go with whatever plan cuts that ridiculous 250$ per month for her son's meds.
 
2013-11-19 03:18:30 PM  

mitEj: http://www.wahbexchange.org/index.php?cID=472

So assuming she makes 50K (she says she makes less than that) and she is 48
and she has 1 dependent child under the age of 25 (says he is a teen)
then she does qualify for a subsidy of 144$ per month
without that the silver plan would be around 524$ per month
after it would be 380$
If she went with a bronze plan it would be less.
she would be smart to go with whatever plan cuts that ridiculous 250$ per month for her son's meds.


The reason she isn't willing to fork over the $380 a month is that even if she does, it won't reduce the $250 a month cost of medications.  The deductible for a typical Bronze plan is going to be more than the 3000 a year she spends on medications.

Another consideration regarding drug costs is a deductible amount may need to be satisfied before the plan begins to share the cost of drugs.
What Is the Deductible Amount for a Bronze Plan?
A deductible is the amount a consumer pays for covered medical services. The final answer to that question won't be determined until all the health plans are made public in October 2013 but an examination of early rate filings found Bronze Plan medical deductibles were on $4,509 average.


http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/bronze-healt h- plans#.UovGFPmko0A

However, try to keep in mind that she should be grateful for the opportunity the ACA has given her to spend money she doesn't have on this insurance coverage that doesn't meet her needs, in order to avoid paying a tax penalty that isn't a tax.
 
2013-11-19 03:20:01 PM  
As someone who is associated with medical insurance companies, i would say that the first thing she needs to do is to dislodge her Doc off of the teat of that really hot Drug Co rep and have him come up with an alternative to a drug that costs $250 per month.

If that is not possible, plead poverty to the drug Co and get the meds that way. If that does not work, buy 'em from Canada or India.  She has a scrip, so no problem.

If all all else fails, the plans she can sign up for have MOOPS varying from $3,000 to $6,000 per year so at least the expenses are capped.

Deal with it.  Without ObamaCare we'd tell the guy to Eff-Off and die if he wanted his pre-existing covered.  So $6K MOOP per year or die?  What's better?
 
2013-11-19 03:37:43 PM  
How high would she have to go cost-wise to get a plan that covers the meds more/entirely? Because if such a plan exists, you can subtract whatever portion of the $250/mo that plan then covers, and she and her son would likely have the added benefit of having really awesome coverage.
 
2013-11-19 03:54:55 PM  

Mrbogey: Johnny_Whistle: Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Oh, right, I forgot about "'Mericans For Emergency Rooms (MFERs, for short)."
 
2013-11-19 05:01:50 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fantasta Potamus: So....... This is an "article" with a transcript of a radio interview of a person that wasn't the one quoted. Just saying "she" said this / that.

Seems legit.

Hmm, so her letter to the Pres that he quoted in a presser?  Just fine.  This?  You're skeptical.

The problems with the Washington exchange website are well known, by the way.  And if you don't like the source,

http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rude-awakening-for-federal-way-w om an-who-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-policy-after -all/

This was the first I'd heard of why they were getting the subsidy numbers wrong, though.  Amazing.  The country's in the best of hands.


Liberals have never really been good with Math.
 
2013-11-19 06:17:06 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Deal with it.  Without ObamaCare we'd tell the guy to Eff-Off and die if he wanted his pre-existing covered.  So $6K MOOP per year or die?  What's better?


This is a straw man.  The choice is not and was not "pay for insurance or die."  It's "pay for insurance or go bankrupt."  Not that the second choice is a great one.  But it's a lot better than dying (and you can always refuse treatment and die, if that's what you really want).

The rest of what you said I agree with.  If the kid has ADHD she should be able to find drugs that will treat that for far less.  Especially if she has a Costco membership.  I know people who actually have good insurance and have a Costco membership because the cost of drugs through Costco is less than their copay at the drug store.
 
2013-11-19 11:01:28 PM  
I am one of the people whose premium quoted on the WA state exchange was incorrect. I got an email from them, and when I went through it again and selected a new plan, it was significantly more expensive than the previous one I had chosen for similar benefits.

I'm really not angry at all about this, however. My current 'health plan' that my employer offers me is so terrible, that even at the new price that is about 4 times the current price I pay I'm very grateful to have a plan that will actually cover any medical needs that I may have.
 
2013-11-19 11:29:13 PM  
MaudlinMutantMollusk: Can we get an Obamacare tab up in here?
 
Displayed 23 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report