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.

(National Journal)   15-20% aren't paying their Taftcare premiums. Subby wanted McKinley Single Payer anyway   (nationaljournal.com) divider line 114
    More: Obvious, obamacare, premiums  
•       •       •

997 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2014 at 12:46 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-03 11:06:12 AM
we need to get to the bottom of the fartpot dome scandal
 
2014-04-03 11:25:31 AM
'cause most of them have the Hoover Flag?


/we should keep the April 1st filter in place
 
2014-04-03 11:29:27 AM
That's not as much as I expected.
 
2014-04-03 11:29:50 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 'cause most of them have the Hoover Flag?


/we should keep the April 1st filter in place


Hoover Flag? They should have that looked at.
 
2014-04-03 11:30:08 AM
One of the biggest players in Obamacare's exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren't paying their first premium-which means they're not actually covered.
The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members-known collectively as "Blues" plans-are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month's premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday.


It isn't 85% of 7.1M you idiot.  It is 85% of the recent enrollees whose first payment will become due.

So perhaps 6.80M or something like that.  Also those 15-20% people who balked on their first payment were not facing a deadline.
 
2014-04-03 11:51:17 AM
If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.
 
2014-04-03 11:52:48 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 'cause most of them have the Hoover Flag?


/we should keep the April 1st filter in place


Ya know, there is a headline out there waiting to go live that includes reference to hot aliens with metal bikinis and boobs and whatnot.  I thought I'd see you over there.  The thread could use your help.  Not one pic of a hot alien in yoga pants yet.
 
2014-04-03 12:07:18 PM

DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.


Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?
 
2014-04-03 12:13:09 PM

dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?


Yeah - 16% within the first six months of enrollment during the first year. I'll take it - it's sure better than the alternative of 0%. Is that what you would rather have happened?
 
2014-04-03 12:21:36 PM

dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?


7.1M is who enrolled in the exchanges.  6M is the number who got insurance related to Medicaid expansion and other Obamacare provisions.

9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.
 
2014-04-03 12:32:22 PM
Here in Massachusetts, Dukakiscare took a while to get going. But now we have over 98% of our citizens covered.

Thanks Dukakis!
 
2014-04-03 12:33:59 PM

dittybopper: Wait: According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?


In the first open enrollment period in the first year of availability amid every right-wing politician and sock puppet working around the clock to misinform and scare people out of buying health insurance. I'd say that's a pretty good enrollment figure at this point.
 
2014-04-03 12:36:53 PM

what_now: Here in Massachusetts, Dukakiscare took a while to get going. But now we have over 98% of our citizens covered.

Thanks Dukakis!


wooo! *chest bump*
 
2014-04-03 12:43:52 PM

mrshowrules: dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

7.1M is who enrolled in the exchanges.  6M is the number who got insurance related to Medicaid expansion and other Obamacare provisions.

9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.


Does that count the number of people who had insurance already, and switched voluntarily (better plan or subsidies that lowered their out-of-pocket cost for example), or those who had insurance, but for some reason lost it (work cut them down to part-time so they don't have to offer them insurance, etc.) and had to sign up through the exchanges?

But hey, even if you take the 9.5M as gospel, that's still only covering about 1/4th of the uninsured the president claimed back in 2009 when he was lobbying for this law.

Not what I'd consider a rousing success.  Single Payer would have covered everyone in one fell swoop, *AND* it wouldn't have required the twisted legal gymnastics employed by Chief Justice Roberts to be considered constitutional.
 
2014-04-03 12:45:58 PM

kronicfeld: dittybopper: Wait: According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

In the first open enrollment period in the first year of availability amid every right-wing politician and sock puppet working around the clock to misinform and scare people out of buying health insurance. I'd say that's a pretty good enrollment figure at this point.


So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?
 
2014-04-03 12:47:58 PM
Well, the whole experiment has failed.  Any day now, Congress is going to repeal this universally hated law.

Chalk up another victory for conservatives!  We always win.
 
2014-04-03 12:48:47 PM

dittybopper: kronicfeld: dittybopper: Wait: According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

In the first open enrollment period in the first year of availability amid every right-wing politician and sock puppet working around the clock to misinform and scare people out of buying health insurance. I'd say that's a pretty good enrollment figure at this point.

So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?


Sure.  So?
 
2014-04-03 12:50:03 PM

Jackson Herring: we need to get to the bottom of the fartpot dome scandal


we should rise as one nation and crack open the ol' dutch oven
 
2014-04-03 12:50:57 PM
Well that chuffs it then.

Shut the whole thing down.  Take away all the insurance from people who got theirs through the exchange.  This obviously will never work.

Sorry poors, die.
 
2014-04-03 12:53:49 PM

Lionel Mandrake: dittybopper:  So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?

Sure.  So?


Well, hey, if 75 to 85% of the people it's intended to cover say "Fark it, I'd rather pay the fine instead", well, you've got to wonder about the popularity of it.

Like I said, Single Payer would have covered everybody, and it wouldn't have required twisted logic to defend it.
 
2014-04-03 12:53:58 PM

DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.


Didn't that 7 million figure include Medicaid? Because I don't have shiat to pay for premiums.
 
2014-04-03 12:54:32 PM
I can't bring myself to make my first payment. $270/month should but something more than a $6300 deductible and no other meaningful benefits.

That's my state's fault and not the ACA, but it does mean I'm giving the money that was going in my IRA to an insurance company now and forever, so maybe it's possible to see why I might be somewhat ambivalent.
 
2014-04-03 12:55:03 PM

mrshowrules: dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

7.1M is who enrolled in the exchanges.  6M is the number who got insurance related to Medicaid expansion and other Obamacare provisions.

9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.


Never mind. Posted too soon.

/thought I'd heard roughly half were Medicaid sign-ups
//not surprised
///and I still know plenty of people who were screwed because their state didn't expand it
 
2014-04-03 12:55:16 PM

mrshowrules: dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

7.1M is who enrolled in the exchanges.  6M is the number who got insurance related to Medicaid expansion and other Obamacare provisions.

9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.


Is 9.5 the number of people, or the number of total policies (some of which may cover multiple individuals)?
 
2014-04-03 12:58:04 PM

dittybopper: kronicfeld: dittybopper: Wait: According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

In the first open enrollment period in the first year of availability amid every right-wing politician and sock puppet working around the clock to misinform and scare people out of buying health insurance. I'd say that's a pretty good enrollment figure at this point.

So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?


well remember, too, there's a pretty sizeable glob of people who fall into the medicaid coverage gap in 20-odd states, who would be covered right now if their governors weren't asshats. Of the remaining ~27m we haven't gotten covered yet (assuming the ~9m number is accurate), how many are in that gap?

/i have no idea
//that coverage gap is reprehensible
///slashies only get coverage in groups of three
 
2014-04-03 12:58:21 PM

dittybopper: Lionel Mandrake: dittybopper:  So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?

Sure.  So?

Well, hey, if 75 to 85% of the people it's intended to cover say "Fark it, I'd rather pay the fine instead", well, you've got to wonder about the popularity of it.

Like I said, Single Payer would have covered everybody, and it wouldn't have required twisted logic to defend it.


100% of American citizens benefit from the preexisting conditions mandate
100% of American citizens can cover their children through age 26
100% of American citizens benefit by reducing emergency room costs incurred by the uninsured
Millions of Americans with existing insurance are taking advantage of lower costs as provided by the exchanges
 
2014-04-03 12:59:55 PM

dittybopper: Lionel Mandrake: dittybopper:  So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?

Sure.  So?

Well, hey, if 75 to 85% of the people it's intended to cover say "Fark it, I'd rather pay the fine instead", well, you've got to wonder about the popularity of it.

Like I said, Single Payer would have covered everybody, and it wouldn't have required twisted logic to defend it.


I bet easily 50% of those are the people who are as patriotic as Drudge and are just stickin' it to Obama and the libs.  So, your margin of unpopularity has been unskewed.
 
2014-04-03 01:00:09 PM
Given that Medicaid expansion was intended to be a big part of the law, and the employer mandate hasn't yet fully come into effect, this seems like a pretty big success story for the ACA. But what do I know.
 
2014-04-03 01:01:16 PM

dittybopper: Lionel Mandrake: dittybopper:  So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?

Sure.  So?

Well, hey, if 75 to 85% of the people it's intended to cover say "Fark it, I'd rather pay the fine instead", well, you've got to wonder about the popularity of it.

Like I said, Single Payer would have covered everybody, and it wouldn't have required twisted logic to defend it.


Of course, lots of those people have no farking idea what they are talking about.  Which makes statistics iffy.

I just overheard a few people talking in a bar about how "only 7.1m of the 300+m in this country are on Obamacare, and everyone's supposed to be on it, so clearly it's a failure."

Single Payer would have solved that, though.  Thanks a lot, Republicans.
 
2014-04-03 01:02:01 PM

mrshowrules: 9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.


Please explain.
 
2014-04-03 01:02:18 PM

dittybopper: Like I said, Single Payer would have covered everybody, and it wouldn't have required twisted logic to defend it.


You would be hard pressed to find many people who support the ACA who wouldn't have preferred a single payer system. The ACA made significant improvements to a shiatty system. It's better than what we had before. But because of the cult of fake capitalism in this country single payer is a non-starter politically. If one day the culture of the nation changes so that a significant portion of the population doesn't cry communism (or socialism or whatever the similar thought terminating buzzword is in vogue that day) at the slightest notion of government involved with or regulating anything whatsoever much less actually being in charge of a system, then maybe we can get single payer.

If you really want to bring that world about, start voting for and volunteering for the campaigns of liberal Democrats.
 
2014-04-03 01:04:36 PM

doloresonthedottedline: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Didn't that 7 million figure include Medicaid? Because I don't have shiat to pay for premiums.


No, 7 million was just those enrolled on the obamacare exchanges. 9 million bought obamacare plans directly from insurance companies, 5 million Medicade sign-ups, 3 million under 26ers covered under parents plans.

Of all those, approximately 9.5 million were previously uninsured and got coverage, the rest were either switching plans or had plans cancelled. 9.5 million is a good start in reducing the number of uninsured.
 
2014-04-03 01:05:30 PM
No one is addressing the real issue making Taftcare invalid.


[WHAR LONG FORM GIRTH CERITIFIKAT?!?!]


\ o /


|


/ \

 
2014-04-03 01:06:57 PM

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

7.1M is who enrolled in the exchanges.  6M is the number who got insurance related to Medicaid expansion and other Obamacare provisions.

9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.

Does that count the number of people who had insurance already, and switched voluntarily (better plan or subsidies that lowered their out-of-pocket cost for example), or those who had insurance, but for some reason lost it (work cut them down to part-time so they don't have to offer them insurance, etc.) and had to sign up through the exchanges?

But hey, even if you take the 9.5M as gospel, that's still only covering about 1/4th of the uninsured the president claimed back in 2009 when he was lobbying for this law.

Not what I'd consider a rousing success.  Single Payer would have covered everyone in one fell swoop, *AND* it wouldn't have required the twisted legal gymnastics employed by Chief Justice Roberts to be considered constitutional.


Except that's not what he promised. The CBO projected 7-8 million exchange plans this year and expanding each year until it reached stability at 22-23 million in 2017. And remember that a plan = usually a household, not individual people who are uninsured. For example, about 1 in 5 uninsured Americans are under the age of 18; do you think they signed up on the exchanges, or is it much more likely that their parents did for the whole family?

This is explained to you in every thread.
 
2014-04-03 01:07:16 PM

maddermaxx: Medicade


It's got what plants crave!
 
2014-04-03 01:16:10 PM
all this taft/mckinley care talk reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caSi0RDRz24

/mighty fine pickin.
 
2014-04-03 01:16:12 PM

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

7.1M is who enrolled in the exchanges.  6M is the number who got insurance related to Medicaid expansion and other Obamacare provisions.

9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.

Does that count the number of people who had insurance already, and switched voluntarily (better plan or subsidies that lowered their out-of-pocket cost for example), or those who had insurance, but for some reason lost it (work cut them down to part-time so they don't have to offer them insurance, etc.) and had to sign up through the exchanges?

But hey, even if you take the 9.5M as gospel, that's still only covering about 1/4th of the uninsured the president claimed back in 2009 when he was lobbying for this law.

Not what I'd consider a rousing success.  Single Payer would have covered everyone in one fell swoop, *AND* it wouldn't have required the twisted legal gymnastics employed by Chief Justice Roberts to be considered constitutional.


Uninsured who now have insurance.  Check link.  I'm pretty sure if Obamacare cured cancer many wouldn't call it a success.  The truth is, for millions it is figuratively a unicorn shiatting a rainbow.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-uninsured-national-201 40 331,0,5472960.story
 
2014-04-03 01:16:16 PM

The Bananadragon: dittybopper: kronicfeld: dittybopper: Wait: According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

In the first open enrollment period in the first year of availability amid every right-wing politician and sock puppet working around the clock to misinform and scare people out of buying health insurance. I'd say that's a pretty good enrollment figure at this point.

So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?

well remember, too, there's a pretty sizeable glob of people who fall into the medicaid coverage gap in 20-odd states, who would be covered right now if their governors weren't asshats. Of the remaining ~27m we haven't gotten covered yet (assuming the ~9m number is accurate), how many are in that gap?

/i have no idea
//that coverage gap is reprehensible
///slashies only get coverage in groups of three


It was over 6 million in the medicaid covereage gap.

So 7M exchange + 6 mil Medicaid + 3M under26 + 4M Direct from insurance - 3M plans lost = 17Mil total 9.5M of which were new coverage, now add in the 6M who were denied Medicaid and it would have been 23 Million in the first year of the program.

Thank Obama

recap

7M+6M+3M+$m-3M = 17M  + 6M = 23 M total but you have to - 6M because republicans refused single payer, so just 17M total in it's first year.

  http://acasignups.net/
 
2014-04-03 01:16:22 PM
I wish the author had a more exact quote from Blue Cross Blue Shield than 80-85% "went on to pay" their first premium. Were they saying of all the plans they signed up or only of those plans that had so far come due for payment? Charles Gaba found comments from other insurers in the 80-85% range, but they were clear that the estimate included those plans whose due date for payment had not yet been reached.
 
2014-04-03 01:16:27 PM

Grungehamster: Except that's not what he promised. The CBO projected 7-8 million exchange plans this year and expanding each year until it reached stability at 22-23 million in 2017. And remember that a plan = usually a household, not individual people who are uninsured. For example, about 1 in 5 uninsured Americans are under the age of 18; do you think they signed up on the exchanges, or is it much more likely that their parents did for the whole family?

This is explained to you in every thread.


Good stuff.
 
2014-04-03 01:16:51 PM

Cletus C.: mrshowrules: 9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.

Please explain.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-uninsured-national-201 40 331,0,5472960.story
 
2014-04-03 01:17:31 PM

Dimensio: mrshowrules: dittybopper: DarwiOdrade: If the nationwide payment rate, across all carriers, remains at 80 to 85 percent, the 7.1 million sign-ups Obama announced Tuesday would translate into somewhere between 5.7 and 6 million people who are actually covered.

Oh well - total failure - shut it down.

Wait:  According to the Obama administration, there were 36.8 million uninsured citizens in the US:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/09/10/CountingtheUninsured46Mi ll ionorMorethan30Million

So we've managed to cover (6m/36.8m)*100 = ~16% of them?

7.1M is who enrolled in the exchanges.  6M is the number who got insurance related to Medicaid expansion and other Obamacare provisions.

9.5M is the number of people who didn't have insurance before but have it today.

Is 9.5 the number of people, or the number of total policies (some of which may cover multiple individuals)?


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-uninsured-national-201 40 331,0,5472960.story
 
2014-04-03 01:18:39 PM

dittybopper: Lionel Mandrake: dittybopper:  So the overwhelming majority of the uninsured would rather pay the tax/fine for not having coverage?

Sure.  So?

Well, hey, if 75 to 85% of the people it's intended to cover say "Fark it, I'd rather pay the fine instead", well, you've got to wonder about the popularity of it.

Like I said, Single Payer would have covered everybody, and it wouldn't have required twisted logic to defend it.


I absolutely agree.  If only we had a legislative body who'd be willing to enact single payer.
 
2014-04-03 01:19:43 PM

Grungehamster: Except that's not what he promised. The CBO projected 7-8 million exchange plans this year and expanding each year until it reached stability at 22-23 million in 2017. And remember that a plan = usually a household, not individual people who are uninsured. For example, about 1 in 5 uninsured Americans are under the age of 18; do you think they signed up on the exchanges, or is it much more likely that their parents did for the whole family?


That's the problem with you liberals. You let children mooch off their parents instead of teaching them to fend for themselves. If my 4-year-old wants healthcare, she's gonna have to figure out how to navigate the website and sign up for herself. You have to break the cycle of dependency.
 
2014-04-03 01:19:45 PM
Jez, why do I keep trying to read the comment sections in these stories? All it does it make me hate people even more.
 
2014-04-03 01:19:46 PM
Who cares about the substantive benefits? What matters is if it's popular!
 
2014-04-03 01:20:41 PM
I signed up through Healthcare.gov

I have not been given the option to pay my premium yet. I know it's due no later than two weeks from 4/1 though. If I don't get anything this week, I'll call them next week and take care of it.

I'm still a deadbeat according to this article.
 
2014-04-03 01:22:48 PM

Old enough to know better: Jez, why do I keep trying to read the comment sections in these stories? All it does it make me hate people even more.


Here, have a bunny.  It won't really help, but it's soft.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-03 01:23:19 PM
Like SCOTUS upholding the mandate, Obama and the current exchange enrollment numbers, those of you finding yourself in denial or just in shock, are basically proof that you live your life in an echo chamber.
 
2014-04-03 01:23:55 PM
You know else doesn't pay?

www.theblaze.com
 
Displayed 50 of 114 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