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.

(Independent Journal Review)   Let's ask some college students and see how many of them have actually signed up for Obamacare. Bonus quote of the day: "I thought Obamacare was supposed to be, like, free"   (ijreview.com) divider line 39
    More: Obvious, obamacare, PJTV  
•       •       •

2188 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2013 at 4:44 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-12-07 03:34:42 PM
14 votes:
Aren't college students by and large covered by their parents' insurance?

Good going, failmitter/pj media
2013-12-07 03:56:36 PM
12 votes:
You don't sign up for Obamacare. You shop for affordable health care under the new PPACA law that says the insurance companies can't be dicks to you any more.
2013-12-07 04:41:25 PM
6 votes:
PJTV content disguised with a tag of something other than Pajama Media.   If you're going to link to right wing extremist propaganda, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Fark you subby for disguising your source, and fark you modmins for greening it.
2013-12-07 07:51:12 PM
5 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: So if you could not have something good for the country......you got something bad for the country and now want me to be happy about your idiotic choice. No. Obama Care sucks. No lipstick can make this pig look good.


We wanted something good for the country - single payer.
We had the chance for something a little less good for the country but acceptable - a public option.
We got something that was flawed but an improvement for the country - the ACA
You want something that is BAD for the country - the old status quo, where people couldn't get insurance if they'd been sick before, died because they didn't have insurance, and went bankrupt if they DID have insurance that didn't cover their costs.

You're presenting it as "if you couldn't have what you want, you shouldn't have done anything".  Which is classical GOP reasoning.  We prefer "if we can't have what we want, we'll get what we CAN and iterate improvements".

Oh, yeah, and keep in mind that the ACA is a compromise with what the Republicans wanted.  The left wanted single-payer.  The Democrats mostly wanted a public option.  The Republicans wanted NOTHING, NO CHANGES, EVERYTHING IS PERFECT.  So this system is indeed the Republicans' fault, because they refused to accept anything better.
OK, so they refused to accept this system either, in hindsight we should have just done what we wanted in the end.  But lesson learned - don't negotiate in good faith with the Republican party, because they're not.
2013-12-07 04:56:46 PM
5 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Men must fund women's health.


And women must fund men's. That's how risk pools work.

Funny that. Of all the people complaining, it's always "I have to pay for a woman's BC!"

It's never "A woman has to pay for my prostate exams!"
2013-12-07 03:51:53 PM
5 votes:
Wow.  Out of all the universities in DC that they went to try this stunt, they went to Howard, the historically black college.

Gee, I wonder why?
2013-12-07 04:08:41 PM
4 votes:

cman: Are you saying black people are dumb? White people can't be morons, too?

Listen, I know the point you were making. I understand it. But Jesus, dude, stop seeing boogeymen everywhere.


Really?

D.C. has  ten separate undergraduate universities, as well as more than a dozen post-graduate schools or other types of schools.  Howard is the only one of them other than UDC which has a majority black population.

When a segment producer wants to do a segment like this, they have to choose which school to go to. Howard is likely not the closest one, since I'd find it odd if PJTV has a studio over near it. GW or Georgetown were likely much closer, considering where most production studios in the city are (with the exception of BET which is in NE). Thus, they had to choose which of the 10 schools to go to.

I find it highly unlikely that they didn't choose Howard because it would falsely illustrate to their viewers how "Obama voters" (read: black people) are ignorant about the health care bill.
2013-12-07 03:46:28 PM
4 votes:
Wouldn't the typical college student be on their parents plan until they are 26 or get their own damn job? If that's not the case because your parents are dead, strung out on meth or whatever you are probably going to get the subsidies that make it free.

Now that the website issues are getting resolved the right is getting really desperate for talking points. I don't think this is going to be the midterm election issue they were hoping for. In fact any political capitol they may have gained in the last month or 2 is going to get thrown away next month when they shut the government down again.

Please proceed teatards
2013-12-07 05:09:37 PM
3 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Its not free if you are forced by law to participate.


Every human being on the planet participates in the health care market. Shifting that to the health insurance market just makes costs more even for everyone, especially because we the taxpayers have to pay for people who have to use the emergency room for primary care.

And American GDP is decreased when healthy workers lose their ability to work due to preventable illnesses and injuries that go untreated because the worker doesn't have health insurance.

Why do you hate the American economy?
2013-12-07 05:05:08 PM
3 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.


Or, you know, until they:
 get hit by a car
 break a leg slipping on ice
 get hit by a bus
 get hit by falling airplane parts
 get hit by an elephant that escaped from the zoo
 get hit by a helicopter falling on a pub where they're drinking (8 killed in Glasgow after that one)
 get shot in a drug deal gone wrong
 get shot in a drug deal gone wrong that they had nothing to do with but got caught in the crossfire
 get shot by the police
 get shot by a fellow student
 shoot themselves by accident,
 get pneumonia
 develop PCOS
 get cancer
 come down with strep throat
 get chlamydia
 get syphillis
 get AIDS
 get gonorrhea
 get pregnant
 accidentally lose a toy car up their ass
 accidentally lose a condom up their vag
 have a condom break and need Plan B
 have a condom break and need an abortion
 get West Nile Virus
 get MRSA
 get drug-resistant tuberculosis after travelling abroad in their junior year
 get kneed in the balls by an ex-girlfriend which leads to testicular torsion
 get beaten up by an ex-boyfriend
 get beaten up by a current boyfriend or girlfriend
 fall over while riding a bike
 get doored while riding a bike
 get hit by a car while riding a bike
 get into an accident while driving a car
 break an ankle while skydiving
 break a wrist while boxing
 break a femur while climbing rock walls
 sprain an ankle badly while training for a marathon
 pull a tendon while exercising
 or just have their body spontaneously decide to fail on them.

So, you know, I guess healthy young people never need health care at all!

Or maybe I read your post wrong and you meant that young people  should be funding this and the stupid was at them for  not getting insurance. In which case, well, it was really fun typing out a few dozen ways that you could get hurt as a healthy young person.
2013-12-08 02:16:52 AM
2 votes:

evil saltine: m00: Gyrfalcon: The "Libertarians" would like it better if people either paid for themselves or died (preferably swiftly and silently and then buried themselves in an inconspicuous ditch)...

Is your source for this other non-Libertarians who happen to dislike Libertarians? I don't mean to pick on you, but I get annoyed when Conservatives say "Liberals would like it if X" and when Liberals say "Conservatives would like it if X" when X is some completely outrageous thing that happens to bolster the ad hominem the poster is currently making.

People do die from lack of healthcare, and libertarians are fundamentally opposed to changing that, so yes Gyrfalcon is correct.


That statement is about as accurate as accusations that Democrats favor death panels (i.e. It isn't).  But it is certainly easier to create and attack a straw man than to engage in any actual research or discourse.

If you want to know what libertarians think, you could try asking an actual libertarian.  Or you could use google for a bit.  Most plans I've seen from libertarians involve decoupling insurance from employment, replacing the employer tax breaks with tax breaks for individuals, expanding the role of HSAs, providing universal (or near universal) major medical coverage with a high deductible (aka catastophic insurance) through a system of tax incentives, tax penalties, and subsidies, (similar to the ACA, but only for major medical care), allowing plans to be sold across state lines, ensuring individual ownership of plans, and creating some form of guaranteed renewal (as opposed to the guaranteed issue of the ACA).

Here is one broad outline from CATO that is similar to what I have described, but there are others:

The most effective plan for most people to cover health care costs probably would include the following elements:
(A) A major medical insurance policy for catastrophic expenses
(B) A high deductible to minimize insurance premiums
(C) A tax-advantaged health savings account built up with regular contributions to cover medical expenses below the deductible
(D) A guaranteed-renewable (sometimes referred to as non-cancellable) feature that means the insurer will continue covering a policyholder regardless of medical conditions, as long as premiums are paid on time
(E) A health-status feature to protect against the risk that future premiums might rise significantly if a policyholder develops medical conditions involving higher medical expenses
Health-status insurance is a relatively new idea, and the best explanation of it is by John H. Cochrane, a finance professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
(F) All insurance policies should be owned by the insured, not their employers or anyone else. This means wherever one might move, the insurance policies will follow. Similarly, divorce won't result in the loss of health insurance.
(G) Each health insurance owner should receive a standard deduction for health insurance premiums on his or her federal income tax return.


Why only a mandate/incentive for major medical and emergency care? Because that's the biggest area covered by health insurance that fits the economic definition of a "public good" insofar as it's non-excludable (modern society will not tolerate people dying outside a hospital simply because they cannot pay) and non-rival (the U.S. at least has the ability to provide as much major medical care as is needed).  The rest of the system (preventative care, routine doctor visits, etc) aren't public goods and there's no reason to think that market forces won't work there.
2013-12-07 04:53:33 PM
2 votes:

edmo: Of course it's free. Conservatives keep bleating that people voted for Obama for free health care. Fox keeps saying it's free and people started to believe it.


Well we all know how popular Fox News is with college liberals.
2013-12-07 04:06:23 PM
2 votes:

Di Atribe: You don't sign up for Obamacare. You shop for affordable health care under the new PPACA law that says the insurance companies can't be dicks to you any more.


This. You can always identify the Teabagger GOP retards because they will come out with some crap about  congress or a union not being covered by Obamacare.
2013-12-07 03:44:06 PM
2 votes:

sprgrss: Aren't college students by and large covered by their parents' insurance?


What he said. You're covered by your parents until age 25.
2013-12-08 03:11:09 AM
1 votes:

m00: Gyrfalcon: The "Libertarians" would like it better if people either paid for themselves or died (preferably swiftly and silently and then buried themselves in an inconspicuous ditch)...

Is your source for this other non-Libertarians who happen to dislike Libertarians? I don't mean to pick on you, but I get annoyed when Conservatives say "Liberals would like it if X" and when Liberals say "Conservatives would like it if X" when X is some completely outrageous thing that happens to bolster the ad hominem the poster is currently making.


No no, I was referring to "Libertarians" (hence the quotation marks)--those idiots who frequent Fark and other forums and pretend they are Libertarians and Randites but really have no idea what they are talking about. Actually, my best friend is a Libertarian and he does NOT want people to die if they can't afford health care--but some fools even right here on Fark think they are "Libertarians" and seem to think that's a tenet of Libertarianism.

There are "Libertarians" and Libertarians, just like there are "Liberals" and Liberals, you know, and "Conservatives" and Conservatives. There are even "Republicans" and Republicans, although the latter are getting pretty thin on the ground.
2013-12-08 03:09:52 AM
1 votes:
Another fail-ass joke article from another birdcage liner right wing blog.
It's not  information - it's Farkkk.com!
m00
2013-12-08 02:40:33 AM
1 votes:

Talondel: Why only a mandate/incentive for major medical and emergency care? Because that's the biggest area covered by health insurance that fits the economic definition of a "public good" insofar as it's non-excludable (modern society will not tolerate people dying outside a hospital simply because they cannot pay) and non-rival (the U.S. at least has the ability to provide as much major medical care as is needed). The rest of the system (preventative care, routine doctor visits, etc) aren't public goods and there's no reason to think that market forces won't work there.


Yep, this is actually pretty close to what I advocate (except I'd just go ahead and socialize it). Just have a socialized system for major medical / emergency care. Done. Leave everything else the way it is (pre-ACA).

The problem was that people were getting screwed because they got cancer, and their health insurance tried to be like "oh... well... you didn't report that you had an ingrown toenail when you were four years old. Since you failed to declare pre-existing conditions, we can drop your coverage. ha-ha!"

The strategy of insurance companies is deny coverage, litigate / delay, and hope you die before your court date. This becomes a vicious circle, because courts are supposed to be the remedy in contract law, but most contract law doesn't have you dying as an outcome of procedural delays.

So I would say the only sensible thing to do is socialize it. Or you have a fund to cover people's treatment while their cases against the insurance company are in litigation which is paid for out of punitive damages, but at that point you might as well just socialize it because to set this up you admit that insurance companies aren't the right vehicle for covering catastrophic illness.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Evil-saltine and Gyrfalcon have proof that Libertarians want to see people die, so I better change my opinion to fit their narrow-minded strawmen :D
m00
2013-12-08 01:56:02 AM
1 votes:

evil saltine: People do die from lack of healthcare, and libertarians are fundamentally opposed to changing that, so yes Gyrfalcon is correct.


"People die from a lack of self-defense, and liberals are fundamentally opposed to self-defense, so therefore 'liberals' would like it better if people died"

See how that works?
2013-12-08 12:04:12 AM
1 votes:

rewind2846: Think that last one over very carefully.


Just so we're clear here: My evidence in support of the fact that there has not been an increase in threats is unreliable, because reliable sources would not discuss this.  But your sources that say there has been an increase are reliable, because. . . why exactly?

Neither of us is going to get a quote from the current director of the Secret Service, but in general I think it's safe to say that the sources I've cited, and the sources those articles quote (reputable news organizations and former Soc. Sec. agents), are more reliable than yours (blogs and one guy who wrote a book on the secret service in 2009 and cites no data to support his claim).  You're also the one making the extraordinary claim and who has the burden of proof, which I'm pretty sure you just admitted you can't meet.

Your entire argument is "People hate Obama because they're racist, and you can tell because he has more threats than any president in modern history, but I can't actually prove that because so one would ever confirm that, but please believe me even though I just admitted that there's no evidence to support my claim."
2013-12-07 11:37:24 PM
1 votes:

rewind2846: as for anything from the Secret Service itself, you can rest assured that any "official" increase in threats will be downplayed until this president leaves office, for security reasons and the national interest


I cite CBS News and Politifact, who debunk the 2009 story with actual reporting.  They note that all claims to that effect can be traced back to the 2009 claim by Ronald Kessler, who was trying to sell a book at the time.  At that his claim in contradicted by people within Secret Service (former employees, who would not be subject to any orders to disseminate misinformation, in case your given to conspiracy theories).

In return, you cite various blogs and tabloids that regurgitate Kessler's 2009 story and its "400%" claim without any support.  But according to you we shouldn't worry about the lack of support for that claim because the truth is being suppressed by the Secret Service.
2013-12-07 11:26:55 PM
1 votes:

rewind2846: One minute. Google. Try not to be stupid.


You just cited as factual support the opinions of various blogs and tabloids, a Politico article that doesn't actually support you, and an article that from 2009 that was already debunked in this thread.  Good work.
2013-12-07 07:43:47 PM
1 votes:

jjorsett: sammyk: Wouldn't the typical college student be on their parents plan until they are 26 or get their own damn job? If that's not the case because your parents are dead, strung out on meth or whatever you are probably going to get the subsidies that make it free.

Now that the website issues are getting resolved the right is getting really desperate for talking points. I don't think this is going to be the midterm election issue they were hoping for. In fact any political capitol they may have gained in the last month or 2 is going to get thrown away next month when they shut the government down again.

Please proceed teatards

Keep whistling past the graveyard. The website continues to be a mess. Just how big a one is tough to quantify because the administration can't or won't release useful data like how many people have actually managed to get insured, which requires making the first payment. The really big shoe to drop will be the cancellation of tens of millions of more policies that'll occur next year due to the delays that were put in for this year plus businesses renewing early in 2013 in order to retain their plans for one more year. You think this early round was bad PR, just wait. Then there's the adverse selection that's already occurring. The young and healthy aren't signing on, which means the premiums are going to go up. That or Obama will have to use the ACA's provisions to hand a ton of money over to the insurers to reimburse them for their losses.

But continue thinking happy thoughts, maybe you're way right and I'm way wrong, and Obamacare will be a triumph.


/CSB

I got a letter from NC BCBS the other day asking for payment so that the plan I picked from healthcare.gov can go in effect 1/1/14. I shopped for that and added it to my cart when the site was supposedly FUBAR beyond belief. I will be honest and tell you I am staying with my employer subsidized health plan because it is around $200/mo cheaper. But don't go getting cocky. A year and a half ago I was a contractor. When I was a contractor I had almost exactly the same plan and almost exactly the same price. They are not insanely expensive plans.

/endcsb
2013-12-07 07:41:42 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Zeppelininthesky: bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.

OK. Let's say you buy a car. Of course, you buy the mandatory Insurance, in case you cause damage to someone else or their property. You make your first payment of, say, $400. Your first day, your driving when your cell phone rings and, distracted, you plow into a parked car, causing $2,000 of damage. Which your insurance covers.

Do you really think that the insurance company used your payments to cover the claim? Do you think they paid for it with their own money? OTHER PEOPLE PAID FOR IT. This is how insurance has worked for centuries. Everybody seems to understand this except for you.

Exactly.  The government has no right to make you purchase a fiduciary instrument from a private business.  You want the government to provide health care ....FINE....why did you make them provide insurance companies a boon?  Why not pass a constitutional amendment?  Here I'll write it.  The government shall provide all citizens quality health care at no cost.

What you fools did was take choice away from people and make insurance companies rich.  Nice one Libs. Idiots.

So, Single Payer? I agree!

Yep.  either in or out of the pool.  You stupid Democrat are wading.  wading is crap.


So, you're in favor of a single-payer system. Great! me too!

wait a second...... wouldn't healthy young people still have to pay into the health care system? Would'nt they stil be subsidizing the sick and old? Wouldn't they be forced into purchasing....what did you call it, 'fiduciary thingamajigs?' What's so different abut this scenario?
2013-12-07 07:02:33 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Zeppelininthesky: bigsteve3OOO: Zeppelininthesky: bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.

OK. Let's say you buy a car. Of course, you buy the mandatory Insurance, in case you cause damage to someone else or their property. You make your first payment of, say, $400. Your first day, your driving when your cell phone rings and, distracted, you plow into a parked car, causing $2,000 of damage. Which your insurance covers.

Do you really think that the insurance company used your payments to cover the claim? Do you think they paid for it with their own money? OTHER PEOPLE PAID FOR IT. This is how insurance has worked for centuries. Everybody seems to understand this except for you.

Exactly.  The government has no right to make you purchase a fiduciary instrument from a private business.  You want the government to provide health care ....FINE....why did you make them provide insurance companies a boon?  Why not pass a constitutional amendment?  Here I'll write it.  The government shall provide all citizens quality health care at no cost.

What you fools did was take choice away from people and make insurance companies rich.  Nice one Libs. Idiots.

So, Single Payer? I agree!

Yep.  either in or out of the pool.  You stupid Democrat are wading.  wading is crap.

I think most Democrats are for single payer. It got shot down first thing because of Republican hatred.

NO  Single payer was never voted on.  The Democrat wanted to give money to the insurance companies.  Your team sold you out.  Plain and simple.


It was never voted on because it was never brought up because the GOP was dead set against the idea. Again, you let facts get in the way of your bias.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr676#summary
2013-12-07 06:41:20 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Zeppelininthesky: bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.

OK. Let's say you buy a car. Of course, you buy the mandatory Insurance, in case you cause damage to someone else or their property. You make your first payment of, say, $400. Your first day, your driving when your cell phone rings and, distracted, you plow into a parked car, causing $2,000 of damage. Which your insurance covers.

Do you really think that the insurance company used your payments to cover the claim? Do you think they paid for it with their own money? OTHER PEOPLE PAID FOR IT. This is how insurance has worked for centuries. Everybody seems to understand this except for you.

Exactly.  The government has no right to make you purchase a fiduciary instrument from a private business.  You want the government to provide health care ....FINE....why did you make them provide insurance companies a boon?  Why not pass a constitutional amendment?  Here I'll write it.  The government shall provide all citizens quality health care at no cost.

What you fools did was take choice away from people and make insurance companies rich.  Nice one Libs. Idiots.

So, Single Payer? I agree!

Yep.  either in or out of the pool.  You stupid Democrat are wading.  wading is crap.


I think most Democrats are for single payer. It got shot down first thing because of Republican hatred.
2013-12-07 06:29:54 PM
1 votes:

Zeb Hesselgresser: Dog Welder: Hey, did anyone happen to mention that most college students are likely covered on their parents' insurance plans and wouldn't actually need to sign up for Obamacare?

What happens when the Employer Mandate causes many of their parents to lose that coverage?


Then they sign up with one of the new ACA employee plans they're offered.  In the event that their employer is too small or too petty to bother with such a plan, then they access their federal or state exchange and get new coverage.  Based on their situation, they likely get a significant rebate.  In either scenario, they're likely to get better insurance at a better price, insurance that can't have premium increases at the same pace as they were occurring before because of ACA cost controls.

Any other questions?
2013-12-07 06:24:36 PM
1 votes:

bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.

OK. Let's say you buy a car. Of course, you buy the mandatory Insurance, in case you cause damage to someone else or their property. You make your first payment of, say, $400. Your first day, your driving when your cell phone rings and, distracted, you plow into a parked car, causing $2,000 of damage. Which your insurance covers.

Do you really think that the insurance company used your payments to cover the claim? Do you think they paid for it with their own money? OTHER PEOPLE PAID FOR IT. This is how insurance has worked for centuries. Everybody seems to understand this except for you.


Go easy on Steve, hes an idiot.
2013-12-07 06:19:57 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.


OK. Let's say you buy a car. Of course, you buy the mandatory Insurance, in case you cause damage to someone else or their property. You make your first payment of, say, $400. Your first day, your driving when your cell phone rings and, distracted, you plow into a parked car, causing $2,000 of damage. Which your insurance covers.

Do you really think that the insurance company used your payments to cover the claim? Do you think they paid for it with their own money? OTHER PEOPLE PAID FOR IT. This is how insurance has worked for centuries. Everybody seems to understand this except for you.
2013-12-07 06:13:18 PM
1 votes:

Zeppelininthesky: jjorsett: sammyk: Wouldn't the typical college student be on their parents plan until they are 26 or get their own damn job? If that's not the case because your parents are dead, strung out on meth or whatever you are probably going to get the subsidies that make it free.

Now that the website issues are getting resolved the right is getting really desperate for talking points. I don't think this is going to be the midterm election issue they were hoping for. In fact any political capitol they may have gained in the last month or 2 is going to get thrown away next month when they shut the government down again.

Please proceed teatards

Keep whistling past the graveyard. The website continues to be a mess. Just how big a one is tough to quantify because the administration can't or won't release useful data like how many people have actually managed to get insured, which requires making the first payment. The really big shoe to drop will be the cancellation of tens of millions of more policies that'll occur next year due to the delays that were put in for this year plus businesses renewing early in 2013 in order to retain their plans for one more year. You think this early round was bad PR, just wait. Then there's the adverse selection that's already occurring. The young and healthy aren't signing on, which means the premiums are going to go up. That or Obama will have to use the ACA's provisions to hand a ton of money over to the insurers to reimburse them for their losses.

But continue thinking happy thoughts, maybe you're way right and I'm way wrong, and Obamacare will be a triumph.

You do realize that most of them are being moved to plans that are better, while paying pretty much the same. Or, some of them are signing up with another company for a better deal through the exchange. Don't let facts get in the way of your bias.


I'm 25, and my plan at work got eliminated for an HSA-type of plan.

But since I'm a non-smoker, I get a discount so I'm actually going to pay less for insurance than I already do now.

So...thanks Obama?
2013-12-07 06:09:09 PM
1 votes:

cman: Rincewind53: Wow.  Out of all the universities in DC that they went to try this stunt, they went to Howard, the historically black college.

Gee, I wonder why?

Are you saying black people are dumb? White people can't be morons, too?

Listen, I know the point you were making. I understand it. But Jesus, dude, stop seeing boogeymen everywhere.


It's the subtle racism of Neo Liberals. They believe anyone of minority status needs to be given a helmet and knee pads.
2013-12-07 06:05:54 PM
1 votes:
farm6.staticflickr.com
2013-12-07 05:33:05 PM
1 votes:

sammyk: Wouldn't the typical college student be on their parents plan until they are 26 or get their own damn job? If that's not the case because your parents are dead, strung out on meth or whatever you are probably going to get the subsidies that make it free.

Now that the website issues are getting resolved the right is getting really desperate for talking points. I don't think this is going to be the midterm election issue they were hoping for. In fact any political capitol they may have gained in the last month or 2 is going to get thrown away next month when they shut the government down again.

Please proceed teatards


Keep whistling past the graveyard. The website continues to be a mess. Just how big a one is tough to quantify because the administration can't or won't release useful data like how many people have actually managed to get insured, which requires making the first payment. The really big shoe to drop will be the cancellation of tens of millions of more policies that'll occur next year due to the delays that were put in for this year plus businesses renewing early in 2013 in order to retain their plans for one more year. You think this early round was bad PR, just wait. Then there's the adverse selection that's already occurring. The young and healthy aren't signing on, which means the premiums are going to go up. That or Obama will have to use the ACA's provisions to hand a ton of money over to the insurers to reimburse them for their losses.

But continue thinking happy thoughts, maybe you're way right and I'm way wrong, and Obamacare will be a triumph.
2013-12-07 05:19:38 PM
1 votes:

Rincewind53: It's basic probability mathematics.


You're talking to a guy that spells 3000 with the letter O, and you expect him to understand math?
2013-12-07 05:13:53 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: FloydA: bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.


Nobody needs health insurance until they get sick or injured.  If we let people buy health insurance after they get sick or injured and then drop it after they get well, the insurance companies will lose money.

Do you hate the free market?  Do you think that insurance companies should not be allowed to make money?  Because it sounds to me like you're advocating for socialism.

Its not free if you are forced by law to participate.


Under the old way: People who bought insurance pay for themselves and the uninsured
Under the ACA- People who buy insurance pay for themselves

And before you scream MEDICAID!, anyone who pays taxes already pays for that.
2013-12-07 05:11:04 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.


Until they get cancer, get into a car accident, or other accident causing them to need insurance.
2013-12-07 04:54:59 PM
1 votes:
NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.
2013-12-07 04:48:47 PM
1 votes:
As a college student who enrolls other college students, I'm really getting a kick...
2013-12-07 04:44:28 PM
1 votes:
Of course it's free. Conservatives keep bleating that people voted for Obama for free health care. Fox keeps saying it's free and people started to believe it.
2013-12-07 04:25:08 PM
1 votes:
Subby making fun of someone for not knowing what they're talking about while not knowing what he/she is talking about. And of course it's a PJ link. Go figure
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report