Printable View
I hate how you keep bringing this up like it means something. The Heritage Foundation wrote a plan for an individual mandate as opposed to a single-payer scenario. They did not write this almost thousand-page monstrosity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Not unless you can prove you have that cash on hand at the time of service. Because without verification that you can actually pay for the services provided you shouldn't be serviced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Actually, there is. Regardless, it's my choice. Period. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the feds to come after me for not signing up. How will they know who does and doesn't have coverage already?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'm okay with that. :) Now opt me out of this mess just like Congress did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
Hopefully i'll get lucky like Buck and save 12 grand a year on my premiums. Even though I don't even pay that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
When I was uninsured (but paying my bills) I found a doctor that gave me a discount if I paid cash. Guess those kinds of doctor/patient deals are gone now. Thanks, Obama!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Insurance companies weren't feeling the pain of the uninsured because they weren't paying for the uninsured, hospitals were. You could argue that since the uninsured cost the hospitals money they in turn had to increase their prices but insurance companies were already negotiating huge discounts with hospitals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
I have no proof to back up my arguments (I wonder if such proof even exists) but I'd be willing to bet obese people and smokers account for a larger portion of why healthcare costs are so high than the uninsured.
I am actually okay with it also. Because I think if you want to go it alone, totally alone, then you should be allowed to. Its like smoking to me. If you smoke in your own home and get cancer from it and die, you had zero impact on me as long as you used zero public services. If you smoked in your own home and got cancer from it, started coughing up blood and go to the ER without insurance and no proof you can pay for the first round of tests or medical services, they should kindly move your ass to sidewalk and let you die.\Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
That is not true depending on the doctor you find. They don't like the paperwork and re-reimbursement schedule on a number of services, especially if you are medicare/aid? My brother in law is a chiropractor and he still loves cash payments. I would be interested to see your proof otherwise. There are places like Target, Walmart, and other drug stores with significantly lower pricing on tests and basic medical care because either you show your insurance card and cash before services or you don't get served. They are not required to provide free services like hospitals are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That was exactly my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
And now we can get a bunch of young, healthy people to bear the burden for all the obese smokers. Thanks, Obama!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm ok with self insuring. You'll just have to have as much cash set aside as the max coverage on a basic policy. What's that limit now? 750k?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
Sounds fair to me. I was the one that opted out, after all. But it apparently doesn't sound fair to our socialist government, unless you're part of said socialist government, in which case you can opt out, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
So why isn't Obummer okay with self insuring? Tyranny, says I!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I am not disagreeing with people that the current implementation is stupid. I am saying that most people are not willing to take that hard line approach and actually follow through with what "opt-out" actually means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
I don't think a bill would have been passed through congress that said we are going to let people die on the sidewalks. That is why Obama and congress didn't agree. Its why there is the "help" mandates in the first place right?
I can see it now. Cunt A and Cock A "opt-out" and then forget to use their rubbers. So Bastard A is on their way into the world and they have to give birth in their trailer park with no assistance so Cunt A and Bastard A die in the process all because Insurance companies A, B and C would not offer coverage they could afford since the pregnancy would now be a "pre-existing condition". Insurance company D, which they could afford, only covers abortions. There would be riots in the streets!
If you halfway as intelligent as you try to sound you'd not self insure. Financially the plan is a loser. It's the same as paying cash for a 750k home and then burying another 750k in the back yard in case it burns down. It's stupid on every level and the people who have the kind of cash lying around to do it, are smart enough to use that money effectively and let the insurance companies carry the risk. This goes back to the original reasons insurance came to be in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Ah ha! The cost of uninsured is 49 billion dollars annually, which amounts to less than 2% of all healthcare spending in the US. Compare this to my previous link of obesity cost 21% of healthcare spending in the US.
As I said blaming the uninsured was a witch hunt. We can't call out the fatties for skyrocketing costs, that would be mean.
I am of the opinion of calling out everyone. From the providers to the abusers of services. This is a moral choice in my mind and if Wrath doesn't want to pay, then I should be given the choice to belong to a network that would let them rot on the street if I so choose. If I don't choose that then I could join a "faith based" insurance program that heals the sick and needy. But since I don't give a shit, I would join the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What about the smokers and the drunks, Tgo? Since you seem to be in a researching mood.
And the elderly. Throw up their numbersQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
It may not be intelligent to take my life savings and bet it all on red, but guess what? IT'S MY SAVINGS. I'll do what I please with it, and people (including myself) have fought for my right to do so. Obummer signs away another liberty. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Basically, you are the exception to the rule. As to why it would have come down that much, if anything, it's because ACA exchange plans are based off your income. Old school personal health plans most certainly were not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
1100 a month is not how much you were paying for the "uninsured". Especially since most plans cost no where near that much. Hell, I can't even fathom why you were paying that much to begin with. I frankly have NEVER seen a personal health plan for a family cost 1500+ a month, and I figure you were paying 1800? Specially not one with an 80/20 split and HDHP.
Old people don't have much of a choice about being old. I am pretty sure people have a choice to not smoke or drink. I could be wrong and all those commercials have subliminal messaging that force people to make those choices though.
Don't even get started with the elderly, because most of their costs are bullshit. Private organizations basically taking advantage of them and soaking up all their wealth. We just went through a $30,000 bill for my grandmother that any sane person would look at and refuse to pay. But since that isn't a "free market" you can't vote with your wallet or not pay your bills. Its ludicrous.
Interestingly, it's not the smokers, drunks and fatties that use up the most insurance. You see, those people die, and die young. It's the healthy people living to be 100 that run up the costs. Check it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Drinking costs 176 billion dollars a year, which is about 7% of annual healthcare spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Surprisingly smoking only costs 96 billion dollars a year which is 3.6% of annual healthcare spending.
Why? Are we blaming people for aging? Shall I post up the numbers for babies too? Darn babies being born!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Not that bullshit "study" again :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Actually, I'm speaking from 30 years of experience in the field. There's a study?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I say screw insurance, flat tax everyone 50% of their income (removing every possible loop-hole, credit, or deduction), and nationalize healthcare.
"free" healthcare for all!
No one, yourself included, has fought for this right. The problem with this type of thinking is that we privatize profit and socialize loss. In a perfect libertarian utopia we'd love to let you die on the street once you've exhausted your savings, but that just ain't going to happen. This whole argument is the ranting of a stubborn inner child. "It's my body I'll do what I want" "You don't own me!" "You're not my Dad!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
You should be. The elderly take up more than the 10 percent the smokers and drunks take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I make enough money to get no subsidy, if that is what you were thinking. I posted in detail how the plan worked but here it is again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
1 healthy adult, 1 more sickly adult(thyroid issues, migraine issues, and something else I don't remember) 1 infant pre ACA:
~$1500 a month premium
$10k max household out of pocket.
$5k max per person out of pocket.
You pay everything for the first $2.5k per person then it goes to 70/30 where you pay the 30% up to the next $2.5k.
After $5k is spent on one person all their care is "free".
After $10k is spent on your household all the household care is "free".
You get a HSA with the insurance, which is like $6k per year of contributions that you can use to either pay for the premium or the services.
I guess it's a fundamental difference in our views...but that's exactly what man has been fighting and dying for since the dawn of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
A perfect Libertarian utopia wouldn't let anyone "die on the street once you've exhausted your savings"...that's just distasteful propaganda on your part.
It is totally my body, and I should be allowed to do what I want. You don't own me, and neither does the federal government. Unless you're in a VA hospital dying from stomach cancer right now, no...you're not my dad.
No one fought for freedom, including me? Okaaay... You're right about a few things, though. You don't own me. It's my body, I'll do what i want. Government is not my daddy. I'm an independent big boy and I'll not agree to subsidize your failed socialist policies just because you think it's the right thing to do. Keep sending Obama your money, if you want. I fought for that right, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Panera is not "required" to give away their left over bread to poor people. They just choose to do it and they can afford to do it from the people overpaying for a sammich. It should be the same way for providers of any service, including medical services. Then consumers can pick and choose who they go with for their care and services. But we are too far down the rabbit hole to do something like that.
With freedom, there's that choice. We can hope. Seriously, though, how will the feds know who to fine- er, I mean, "tax"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
And the non elderly take up the most, what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Well if you take out the elder, the smokers, the drunks, and the fatties, that's around 45%. How much of that is babies, then what is the rest divided into? As in what kind of services?
Jingoism aside your argument is total bullshit. No one in the armed services fought to be unencumbered from the law or civic responsibilities like paying bills and taxes. Why the fuck are you even arguing. If you go broke you can just go to the VA. As a combat veteran you could probably go there anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Are you insured now or are you just fucking the US taxpayer bareback?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1
HOLY SHIT ... he did *not* blame Bush !?!?!??!Quote:
"Nobody's madder than me about the website not working as well as it should, which means it's going to get fixed," Obama said without specifying exactly what went wrong or who was to blame.
Even after I posted a link that showed the uninsured cost less than 2% of the total healthcare spent in this country you're still using this argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You make me a sad man :(
Don't forget the part about him saying that if he had to he'd pay his bills out of his own pocket. But yes, he is clearly fucking the tax payers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What's sad is that for some reason you are defending the uninsured. Not sure why because you are conservative about other issues but have a real soft heart for people who don't carry insurance. I think it's just because ACA is an Obama program. If it were rolled out by President Mitt Romney in an alternate universe you'd be cool with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That's what he said. Can he? Probably not. It's a stupid theoretical argument that can only be made by someone who just want to argue. We, certain states, let people put up bonds for auto insurance and I'm ok if ACA allows that too. It'll be a small group of people that do so it won't have an effect on the overall program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I'm arguing because it's what we do in America. When freedoms are stripped, we whine about it until we forget about it. I just haven't forgotten yet. As for my personal affairs, they're none of your business but you can rest assured that I keep the governmental theft of my income to a minimum. If you're okay with paying, don't be upset when I'm not. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I thought the IRS was handling all of that? According to the Government Accountability Office(a thing), there are 47 new provisions in ACA that the IRS is directly responsible for implementing...including, of course, the fine for non-compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
This is an interesting read on it, if a bit dry: http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/320403.pdf
I know most of you don't care for the nuances of politics like I do, but I find it's much better to get information from the source, as opposed to MSNBC or Fox or wherever. Practically zero entertainment value, but much more accurate.
I'm not "defending" anyone. I just think it's funny that people were suckered into believing Obama's lies (yes lies) that the uninsured are the reason we are in the mess we're in (healthcare spending wise.) It's ludicrous. There are plenty of reasons for why our healthcare costs are so high and I can guarantee you the uninsured make up such a tiny part of it that it's probably not even worth mentioning them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Since we're talking about an alternate universe where Mitt Romney won (although I'm pretty sure you mean McCain) can you imagine if things played out exactly the same with ol' Mitt up on national TV trying to convince everyone that the uninsured are the reasons why their healthcare costs so high? I can see the headlines now "Romney wages war on the poor while giving tax breaks to his millionaire buddies." But Obama does basically the same thing and everyone falls in line and takes a number to carry his water.
I'm against Obamacare because it is useless (as far as solving the problem it claims to be solving) and it was pushed through on a false premise and lies. Perhaps I wouldn't be as against it if Obama just told the truth "Yo, we need more people paying into the system so we're going to take all of the uninsured/healthy people and turn them upside down and shake them until enough money falls out to pay for everything." I at least would give Obama points for being honest. But instead we have this bullshit that "Uninsured cost us sooooo much money! Did you know if an uninsured person walked into an ER with a broken leg (rimshot!) that they would be required to treat him!" Of course the implication is that the uninsured person won't pay a dime of his bill, fact is most uninsured people DO make efforts to pay their medical bills! Some even pay their entire medical bill.
Turns out that I will end up saving $45 a month on my health insurance plan. Now if my state could get the site working I'd sign up!
LOL @ making claim of reduced insurance costs before actually under new/modified insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Thanks. IRS, eh? Like they don't have enough to do. Wonder how much more that's going to cost to have them policing people who aren't interested. I'm guessing more than the penalties will bring in, but hey, that's government for you. Are the particulars of how they can tell who to fine er, um, "tax" in there? If so, that'll be good reading for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Oh thank you, thank you, thank you for taking the time to give us this valuable insight and information. Without you we might be blindly following that there talky box with its bright colors and purty big words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
We're blessed to have one so much better than us on these boards how can we repay you for coming down from on high to mingle with us common folk?
I don't think anyone is saying that's the reason for our healthcare mess. The uninsured are a component of cost but it's not breaking us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I meant Romney since this is a modification of Romney care. And again, ACA is not because the uninsured are driving our country to bankruptcy. You're just projecting here. The reason you get pushback on this is probably because the GOP is the party that should be FOR making sure people are insured with private insurers. The Dem's should be pushing socialized medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What you're describing is what Obama and his mouthpieces have said all along. It's why the individual mandate is important and this has been a stated reason all along. We need as many healthy people paying into this system as possible to balance the effect of insuring the previously uninsurable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I thought you were the one writing all the posts about how the people ACA is targeting aren't going to pay their deductibles anyway. You've written a lot on here about how ACA sucks because most people go bankrupt for relatively small medical expenses. Can't have it both ways.
See the bolded portion. If these previously uninsurable are now insurable and able to cover their "affordable" premiums now, then why do we need the mandate again?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
As far as I can tell, they will have extra paperwork for you to fill out with your tax returns. Here's another good read that's probably going to piss you off a bit, I know it did me...the IRS' budget for FY 2014:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget...FINAL%20v2.pdf
Almost 2,000 bureaucrats assigned to nothing but ACA enforcement. Sweet.
Actually in respect to costs, I did say I felt like uninsured is what caused my bills to be so high. Now, I don't know.
I ruled out overweight people, smokers, and any other condition because my assumption is they are all covered moving forward so why would that reduce my costs. I assumed it was because people, who had nothing, would be now be paying "something" and that the number of uninsured/under insured is what is making up the difference.
I still don't know why it dropped as much as did, and the only reason I can come up with is that more people are paying in and so the ratio of payers to services paid has gone up.
Ah, and there it is. I'm sure they're all minimum wage workers, too... Thanks for the links, in the middle of the first one now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Now you're being disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Still being disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Ironic isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
And how was this phrased? Was it phrased by stating that, or was it phrased with fear and hyperbole like my previous broken leg statement? Come on man, you know it's the latter, just stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
A) I never said all people Obamacare is targeting aren't going to pay their bills. B) How is what you just said having it both ways? People (SOME!) still aren't going to pay their bills and people are still going to file for bankruptcy for relatively small medical expenses. How are those two mutually exclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You're just overly sensitive to the argument against being uninsured. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. We're all better off with more people insured. It's as simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Ya it is ironic. The party that should love the individual mandate is the party that's opposed to it. It makes no sense logically but that's only because it's a political maneuver. In the context of elections it makes perfect sense and just goes back to my theory that the GOP is so fucking whacked right now because Obama's stealing their thunder on middle of the road conservative issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I've known this all along. Why didn't you? As for the suggestion that politicians can be hyperbolic....well no shit. I've known that forever too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Before you said that ACA is useless because people aren't going to pay their bills. Now you're saying that even the uninsured makes efforts to pay their bills. Depending on which side you're arguing on a day to day basis you flip flop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You're trying to make a connection here that doesn't exist. If your tortured reasoning were sound we'd never have seen states develop laws about financial responsibility. Everyone would just be responsible because it's the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
So by this logic, the only thing that keeps you from stealing my car is that you're afraid of going to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That and if you were around you might have a gun and stop me. But if there is no jail and there is no you or a gun, hell yeah I would be stealing cars. It would be a victimless crime, because your insurance would just pay you back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Oh, it exists. If previously uninsured people can now be covered and "afford" their insurance, who am I being forced to subsidize? You said this was the reason for the mandate. Is it not now? Since when is touting individual liberties tortured reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So then we agree that if everyone has a gun we don't need government. Glad that's settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
Glad to know you're morally challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
It most certainly would not be a victimless crime...whether I got a check from the insurance company or not, it would still cost me time and money. Are you going to take the things out of the glove box, center console, back seat, and trunk and just take the car? Would still be a pain in the ass to get a new one.
We don't know you are subsidizing anyone. You sound like a deadbeat who doesn't have insurance or pay taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
This concept you're hung up on is not obscure or hard to comprehend. The fact that you can't understand it makes me think you don't have an extra 750k that you're not doing anything with.
I never disagree with everyone having a gun. I carry one myself, however we would still need a government if for nothing other than to classify, but not enforce, what constitutes a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Read up on what a victimless crime is. Identity theft is considered a victimless crime yet that costs you shit load more time and money(in relation to time=money and possibly loans and not getting them) than a car theft does. Maybe I would be that considerate I suppose. Keep in mind I am not morally challenged. You are the one who removed the condition of it not being a punishable crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Having sex with someone before you are married is not a crime, nor do I consider it a moral hazard. If that was "illegal" and punishable by prison time, I suspect I would have a different opinion on the matter.
Just answer the question. If we don't know that I'm subsidizing anyone, then why the mandate? Again, you just said this was the reason for the mandate. If you're not going to stay on topic, don't bother answering. Personal attacks are the sign of a lost argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
We are better off with a system that doesn't give so much power to insurance companies. No ifs, ands or buts about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I thought the ironic part was Democrats should be pushing for socialized healthcare but instead are fighting for big corporations to get more and more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
When did I say I didn't know this all along? Face it, Team O has been demonizing the uninsured from the beginning. "Look at all of the medical bills an individual can rack up if they lack insurance!" Come on man. If you don't see that as blaming the uninsured then I don't know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I think I see the problem here, your memory is going.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I said most uninsured make an effort to pay their bills, I didn't say all uninsured pay all of their bills. How you got that from anything I have said is nothing short of amazing. I think one of the links I posted said on average uninsured pay something like 20-30% of their medical bills. To me that's making an effort, not the same thing as paying all of their bills. It's a complete 180 from people who say things like:
Trying to imply that people who aren't insured are just a bunch of parasites who don't pay their bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
As far as my earlier argument that people aren't going to pay their bills that was in response (pretty sure to you) that Obamacare would solve the problem of people not paying their medical bills because they will be forced to have health insurance. All I was saying in response to that is if people weren't paying their bills before Obamacare there is nothing about Obamacare that will ensure people will pay their bills after Obamacare.
Identity theft is considered a victimless crime? By who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
Figure it out dude. You've got a lot of energy to rail against Tyranny, "Obummer" and IRS theft without making any sense. Take some of that energy and do some self education. It's not hard to understand, just take some time to learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Just about every minor law enforcement agency in the country. Call your local police station and ask them how they police someone stealing your information, opening a credit card account and using it online, in Singapore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
How do I know? Because in 2007 it happened to me and nobody did anything to help me out and I still get calls from creditors to this day and in fact was declined a refinance just this past August because it showed up again. It took several weeks to get it cleared up and this also meant the rates went higher(costing me money and time).
That is because you are supposed to contact http://www.justice.gov/criminal/frau...s/idtheft.html and the FTC if it is across state/international lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
So you can't answer. Mouth ran a little further than your knowledge of the topic. Understood. I take no offense from your insults. I've heard enough liberal arguments to know that they all end that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
By the thieves, as the marks are just some random poor saps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Is this where I get to say that we should kick out all the illegal immigrants since they are mostly the ones without insurance and are "fucking the US Taxpayer bareback".Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
wait..
This is now the part where you said the only smart thing to do is make them legal citizens, right? Which to me is like getting caught robbing a bank, and getting handed a bag of money and saying "next time, we won't be so nice".
Yeah they don't do anything. Additionally, when CCs are used here in the states with double swipes(whenever I went to KY for business I always got double swiped) nobody does anything anyways. They just tell you to open a dispute and sign an affidavit with the CC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You had the Presidency and the votes. Republicans are just too beholden to special interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Newsflash: Democrats also beholden to same special interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Double swiping, under a certain amount, is more a civil matter. It pretty much hinges directly on the amount and the method it is done. While it would be considered theft if someone stole $20 from your gym locker, you probably won't get a very serious response from reporting that to the authorities. If they steal your identity information and open accounts and such, it falls under fraud, however, and that is generally something they like to investigate a little further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
Identity fraud has dropped quite a bit since 2003, whether that is from stronger law enforcement, people becoming more informed, better security measures, or a combination of all that, I am not sure.
Nah, Bush was Regan lite on Immigration. Republicans are trying to hard nowadays cause they are terrified of the "latino" vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Out of all my hispanic friends, none of them want these people to be given citizenship for coming here illegally. They all did it the hard way. Generally, it's the people from the last amnesty, and the ones that are illegal that are demanding this. No shit they want it.
If it was up to me, and I am sure every liberal in the world is glad it isn't, I would reform the process to become a citizen, kick out every illegal, and pass a law that anyone caught here illegally does 50 years hard labor. Then I would withhold all funding to any city/state that considers itself a "sanctuary" city. Or let them know that if they want to keep doing it, they can choose to succeed from the Union, in which case I would be sending people to "visit" shortly after.
I am going to chalk it up to people not storing socials and account numbers in plain text and enforcing better encryption on the web. The login for my online bank account was my social until 2009/2010?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Exactly Jarvan! You've highlighted another GOP urban legend which is the story of the uninsured illegal alien bankrupting the country. This is one reason why people can't understand the GOP's opposition to an individual mandate. It's straight out of their playbook. Like I said before, it makes no damn sense, except when you consider that if the Democrats take all the GOP's issues, then the republican candidates have no reason to be elected so it becomes important for them to go find new scary things to campaign about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
That could be a big part of it. With all the news stories about companies and organizations losing socials so often, I imagine it boiled out to companies and organizations not wanting to be in the position where it could be them with their names in the headlines for the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
Until recently, Identity Theft wasn't even a thing. Now it's the fastest-growing crime trend in the country. I'm sorry that nobody helped you out six years ago, but right now...most of my mother's case load is related to identity theft. She's an Intelligence Analyst for FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement).Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
A victimless crime, by it's definition, is a crime you commit against yourself. Gambling, prostitution, and drugs would be victimless crimes. Identity theft is not a victimless crime.
I can't believe the VA/military and medicare (medicaid too?) use social security numbers still. Medicare has the social security number right on the card and every time my dad goes to the VA he has to give his last four to at least half a dozen people, usually within earshot of a waiting room full of people and sometimes he has to give his full social security number, again within earshot of a waiting room full of people. Also the ID cards they issue has his social security number printed on it.
Thanks, Obama!
Actually, we should let illegal immigrants stay in the country (and work) ... BUT we should deny them health services & etc.
The later costs taxpayers, but the former at least helps pad the social security system funding, as no dime will ever be paid back out to the illegals.
SS an Medicare are bankrupting the country, not Illegal Immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I can browse the plans just not sign up yet. And if you don't believe how much I said I'm saving there is nothing I can do abou that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I can assure you that nobody I have spoken with gives two shits about my cases. Every year our mail gets stolen multiple times with credit cards and applications in it and I would say once every year to two years we get a call from fraud operations and it just goes away now. Essentially its a victimless crime, if you read your Wikipedia page it says in there even that even though experts disagree companies are not a person so they are not a victim when stuff gets stolen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I have a Capital One credit card that someone opened up in my name during college(1998) that I have never held the physical card. No matter how many times I call, write, or complain it still sits there as $6500 in unused credit. Maybe Florida has the resources to deal with it but Maplewood Police, Ramsey County Sheriff, and St. Paul police don't do jack shit about it here in MN. They even have you fill out a report over the phone and it just gets filed with no work done on it and they call it a victimless crime.
There are so many other crimes that they need to be researching, they don't have the money to deal with credit card thieves and people who open up accounts in your name to buy shit.
Here is a funny recap of it from 1989:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=2325,3281952
Where the fuck do you live that your mail is stolen multiple times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
Maybe he has an old card. Mine just has my picture and name on the front with a magnetic strip on the back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I live in ~100 home neighborhood with two entrance points that is off the main drag of a highway. Nobody is home during the day for the most part and so we attract a lot of criminal activity because of the area we are located. You can pull off the highway get into the neighborhood and out in less then 2 minutes. I live in Maplewood MN specifically, where the average response time of police for a non-violent crime is over 40 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Additionally, we frequently get drunks and high speed chase people who zip off the highway and duck into the neighborhood to try and elude St. Paul police.
You'd think the HOA or Postal Service would put in locked boxes if it was such a criminal attractant. I can't think of the last time I got my mail from a box that wasn't locked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
They said no to that because it would block too much traffic. We tried a locked mailbox once, until they ran it over with the snowplows and then people just took the mail off the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I should also point out that they allowed a school bus dispatcher to go in after condemning a amusement park. All the neighbors didn't want it, but we lost. We demanded a sign go up that says All commercial traffic must turn left. sign to direct them to our non residential road and use a county road. Even though they did that and there is a city ordinance about it, all the buses turn right to go through our street. So every morning there is about 150-200 buses in a long string blocking traffic trying to leave the neighborhood. You get high on the diesel fumes in your car as they pass by.
They aren't the brightest people.
There were approximately 48 million uninsured Americans in 2011. You are correct that the CBO predicts 30 million uninsured with ACA, but that factoid loses a lot of punch when the first is corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Neither young nor healthy have causal impact on a being's future state. In fact, nearly 100% of people who were once young and healthy are not anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What is your % chance of developing cancer? I will accept precision to merely the hundredths place, as there are no fractional cents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
You faced down a bullet for roulette?Quote:
It may not be intelligent to take my life savings and bet it all on red, but guess what? IT'S MY SAVINGS. I'll do what I please with it, and people (including myself) have fought for my right to do so. Obummer signs away another liberty. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
Because people are not always rational. Specifically: an otherwise identical program will always, always get more participants by being opt-out than opt-in.Quote:
See the bolded portion. If these previously uninsurable are now insurable and able to cover their "affordable" premiums now, then why do we need the mandate again?
I faced down a bullet for freedom, so if roulette is my thing, then yes. If it's not yours, fine. I should not be compelled by government to buy anything. Why is this being forced on us? Tyranny in the name of the poor. That's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
A buddy of mine posted this on facebook today. I lol'd.
Mr. President,
Of course the websites for heathcare were flooded with people signing up but to say it means all the millions of people want the healthcare is false...you mandated it Dick. We have no choice without a fine.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...kodil.wls.html
Wish they would have an expert explain how their care was paid for, and how it would be paid for under the ACA. There was another case where a guy was bragging on some radio show about going 180 on his bike and crashing and running up a couple million in hospital bills.
I would be curious about the same things with his care. You know, Darwin and all. He was covered under his parent's insurance.
Why? Is there an Amendment that explicitly guarantees that? Either a real Amendment or one of those fake liberal unConstitutional ones are acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
There are numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the liberals and the conservatives, there are economic factors, both domestic and inter-...Quote:
Why is this being forced on us?
Tyranny in the name of the poor it is, sir! Now, which way to the unemployment office?Quote:
Tyranny in the name of the poor. That's why.
Still waiting on your risk assessment, by the way.
Anyone think the President sounded like an infomercial salesman you see on late night TV today during his speech?
He is such a joke.
I recommend you Google and read the opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. While not a real or fake amendment, the current court did say that the individual mandate was not constitutional under the commerce clause (which surprised many legal scholars). As you may recall, the mandate survived as a tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
So as an assertion:
'I should not be compelled by the government to buy medical insurance'
would just be restating the actual result as written by Chief Justice Roberts.
Who knows what the future will bring, but right now, 'I should not be compelled by the government to buy medical insurance' is backed by the majority of justices on the court.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...idual-mandate/
It's kinda funny, now that it isn't an issue, NOW they say they won't rule it out.
If Obama delays the individual mandate I hope every single person who defended Democrats during the shutdown comes along and apologizes to the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Also what is this shit? I could have sworn the individual mandate went into effect Jan 1st and in order to meet the deadline you had to be enrolled sometime in December.Quote:
Echoing Obama, Carney said repeatedly that the country is just three weeks into a six-month enrollment process and suggested it's too early to make any decisions of that magnitude.
JFC shut the fuck up about the ACA already. No one's liberties are being taken away. You live in the greatest country in the world. You're fucking spoiled whiney entitled armchair would-be anarchists who really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If the government went away tomorrow you'd be fucked. Seriously.
The mandate just goes into effect on Jan 1. You have until March 31st, when open enrollment will close for 2014.
So they opened the exchanges on Oct. 1. So you have 6 months to purchase.
He's ready to blow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Ah I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckwheet
I wish the ACA had encouraged private companies, like Target, to expand their services to include things like sprains, strains, breaks, and fractures where no surgery is required. I just got done reading a report by the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. They said a simple broken arm costs $2500 at the emergency room.
Compared to a Regional Medical Center in Nebraska at like $600. This compared our regional medical center HCMC. So no wonder my shit is so expensive. $2500 for non-surgical broken arm? What the fuck.
So much self hate in this backed by some much denial and bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
If only you guys would froth so hard about all Heritage Foundation crafted policies.
Tell us more about being whiny, spoiled, and entitled armchair Americans. I'd love to hear it from you. Please continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Interesting...
http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insura...postal-hmo.pdf
Here is a PDF of all the plans available to federal workers (non postal) for 2014. How much the plan costs, and how much the fed picks up.
THIS is even funnier tho.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...house/3150421/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1
Sounds like the Democrats are smelling the potential negative political impact, and Sebelius is diving on the grenade (of *course* Obama knew ... *LAWL* @ him not being informed)Quote:
Before it even launched, red flags went up about the Obamacare website. Health insurance companies complained about it, and the site crashed during a test run. But nobody told the President of any of it, the nation's health chief told CNN.
Kathleen Sebelius said President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live on October 1. That's when the site nosedived into a technical abyss.
This never, ever gets old. Really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Why is it when you find something to post about, you do it ad nauseum?
We get it already.
Even if you believed that the ACA didn't take away anyone's liberties today, the indentured servitude of our children/grandchildren to gluttonously fund our own unobtainable/unsustainable socialist Utopian aspirations today is immoral, in my view. Not yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
What about my liberty to choose to not purchase health insurance if I don't want it without paying a fine/tax?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Is that liberty going away? A simple YES or NO will suffice.
Bonus points if you can do it without either:
a) Saying something totally unrelated instead, and calling me racist.
b) WB showing up first and saying something totally unrelated instead, and calling me racist.
You live off the rest of us. Why do you feel you have a say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
So I have a question... there are a bunch of Dems now asking for a 1 year delay in the individual mandate. Obama has even hinted that he may be willing to have a delay in it.
Does this mean, that WHEN they delay the individual mandate, Repubs can basically say.. "Dem's kept the government shutdown for 2 weeks for no reason now".
Kinda makes you laugh, "No Negotiations!!...... but wait 1 month and I will do it anyway"
No dude. It doesn't mean that at all. The Gov't shutdown was to defund all of the ACA. The mandate is something that people discussed targeting but the republicans never achieved a level of organization to make that their one demand. There was another thing going on too and that's precedent. If you think a sitting president is going to weaken the presidency like that you're smoking crack. Why penalize people if they are incapable of getting insurance through no fault of their own? That makes no damn sense at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I know you guys just say/repeat this stuff because it's argumentative and fits your partyline. Don't you ever think objectively though? You have all this freedom to think for yourself, to learn, to read up on issues yet you never get above the basest bullshit.
Show us where you have absolute freedom and liberty? You don't. Why do you even try this argument, it makes no sense. We have laws that govern the things we can and can not do. It's nothing new and specifically Financial Responsibility laws are nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/up...Chupacabra.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
edit: Exactly PB. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for the timely example.
You know, you are not very smart. a few days into the Shutdown, They passed a CR with an amendment to DELAY the mandate. Which means that once that bill passed the House, the Senate Extended the Shutdown by 2 weeks for nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I am SOOO Sorry. I goofed.. they voted to DELAY the individual mandate on September 28th. So technically, yes. If Obama delays the mandate, the ENTIRE SHUTDOWN, was avoidable.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...own-97496.html
Heritage Foundation didn't craft this policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
They wrote out a framework for an individual mandate as opposed to a single-payer system. This bloated pile of shit is not what the Heritage Foundation came up with. I know it feels good to repeat partial truths you heard something about on Maddow's show like it's the gospel, but stop it. You're making yourself look foolish.
Whether the house did or did not isn't relevant. You're looking at the tree and missing the forest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Never underestimate the willingness of either party to grand-stand in whatever way they can if they think it will hurt the public opinion of the other. Sometimes they backfire, but usually, their highly-paid army of advisors and pollsters minimize the risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'm very much against ACA, not because of any of this freedom nonsense...I mean sure, I do think it's trampling my rights, but hey...we've been rolling over for that for at least 100 years, why stop now?Quote:
I know you guys just say/repeat this stuff because it's argumentative and fits your partyline. Don't you ever think objectively though? You have all this freedom to think for yourself, to learn, to read up on issues yet you never get above the basest bullshit.
My issue with it mainly is that it's a giant pile of shit, even as far as massive government programs go. Almost a thousand pages of loopholes and Hill talk and smoke and mirrors. The people who wrote it even admit they don't understand it fully.
It's creating thousands of new positions in the IRS, and giving them powers they shouldn't have...the "made-up scandal" about them targeting Conservative groups is a good example. Additionally, a LOT of people have raised concerns about the safety of private medical information, and this has already proven to be a problem. I think it tries to do too much. We could have regulated the health insurance industry without all this extra stuff.
LOL. So you are admitting that yes, the Dems shut the government down for no reason if they now delay the mandate?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's big of you.
You know, it's even funnier when you take into account that HHS KNEW the website was shit even before the vote above took place.
Point out where I said the word absolute.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The freedom to not be forced to purchase something by government under the penalty of a tax is an answer to the question Back asked when be asked what liberties are being taken away.
Do you understand now? Or should I explain it to you again?
Like most other things, I'm sure it went way over your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Nice perspective on ACA and healthcare in general especially in regards to giving health care to those who can't afford it.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1312793
Healthcare is a privilege. If it was a right, it would had been in the "Bill of Rights". Healthcare being a privilege does not preclude an individual from being able to pursue it.
Are you responding to something in particular or just letting us know what you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Damn those founding fathers for not having the foresight to know health insurance would become a thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
What about those persons that aren't "dead man walking" that can't afford health care and don't qualify like this clearly not propaganda article you linked?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Also do why do we think doctors order so many tests before moving forward? Is it to get rich? Is it to get the insurance companies rich? Is it to truly help the patient by covering all aspects of a scenario? Is it to CYA so they aren't sued if they move forward with a treatment and it doesn't work?
Will the ACA fix all of these things?
I know you are, but what am I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Come on man.. you can at least try to be better than that.
My point was this: You latch on to really stupid points you are trying to make and use it in multiple posts. "Obamacare was a Republican idea!", "Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, AYN RAND!!", "Iraq War", etc...
We get it.
You insult people, link images, and complain about Obama. There's source demands and a failure to actually read things too. I'm sure an infographic of your posts would be pretty sad. This is a bad road to go for you as both Kranar and Bob nailed down your posting style so accurately years ago that you could almost be a bot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
When you keep not responding to something obvious and I can tell it gets to you why would I not repeat it?
Why did that article offend you?Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
Amazing.
If those six Senate Democrats had actually voted to approve the House deal earlier wouldn't there have been enough votes to avoid the shutdown?Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — After uniting against Republican efforts earlier this month to delay President Barack Obama's health care law, a growing number Democrats in Congress now want to extend the enrollment deadline, and one senator wants to delay the penalty for not complying.
Six Senate Democrats up for re-election next year have proposed delaying the new March 31 deadline for applying for coverage while the program's problems are ironed out. A seventh, West Virginia's Joe Manchin, is co-authoring a bill to postpone the $95 penalty for people who fail to meet the deadline for acquiring insurance.
While their proposals are short on details, all argue that it's not fair to hold millions of Americans accountable for buying insurance when the primary instrument for enrollment — the HealthCare.gov website — has prevented many people from doing it.
Even the law's biggest boosters are aggravated that enrollment process for the national health care law they had hoped to tout on the 2014 campaign trail has gotten off to such a bad start.
"If we want this law to work, we've got to make it right, we've got to fix it," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the law's leading authors, said at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Thursday on the sign-up problems.
Contractors for the health insurance website told the committee the government failed to thoroughly test the complex enrollment system before its Oct. 1 launch. The system crashed as soon as consumers tried to use it. A web of confusing deadlines and penalties for not obtaining health insurance persists.
As Democrats began to fret about the political consequences ahead of the 2014 midterm elections, the administration late Wednesday said it was granting what amounts to a six-week filing extension. The March 31 deadline for having insurance became the new deadline for applying for it.
But that's not enough for a growing number of Senate Democrats.
Manchin is teaming with Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., on a bill that would waive for one year the $95 penalty for not enrolling in the program.
"It should be a transition year. For one year, there should be no fines," Manchin said Wednesday on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor."
The six Senate Democrats seeking re-election next year urged the Obama administration to postpone the March 31 deadline.
"As you continue to fix problems with the website and the enrollment process, it is critical that the administration be open to modifications that provide greater flexibility for the American people seeking to access health insurance," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., wrote to Obama on Tuesday. Extending the open enrollment period and clarifying other parts of the law, she added, "would be a great start."
Also supporting Shaheen's effort are Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall of Colorado, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, aides to the lawmakers said.
"I am asking the administration to extend the open enrollment period by two months, and waive the penalty for the individual mandate for the same period of time, to make up for time that is being lost while the website for the federal exchange is not functioning," Hagan said Thursday.
All of the Senate Democrats earlier this month joined in rejecting legislation passed by the House to delay for a year the law's requirement that people buy health insurance as well as the tax subsidies for helping them do it, as a condition for ending the partial government shutdown.
I guess we can now officially blame that shutdown on Democrats.
No, of course not. This viewpoint is just revisionist history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If the house votes on a bill to waive the individual mandate for 1 year they are just doing their job. That's what they are supposed to do. Create bills, take a vote and send it to the Senate. If people are found to be incapable of getting insurance because the application process is too glitchy, then why penalize them? It's not like it's an atrocious penalty anyway.
The shutdown was a totally different animal. They didn't vote on defunding ACA, because they'd already done that 40+ times and lost, they attached defunding the business of our whole gov't in some stupid game of chicken, and they lost.
Trying to now say that this is some sort of proof that the individual mandate is immoral or invalid is just not logical.
Whether or not the mandate is immoral or invalid is besides the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It seems pretty simple to me. The House passed a bill that would have ended the government shutdown if they delayed the individual mandate for a year, all Senate Democrats rejected the bill. Six Senate Democrats now support delaying the mandate, if they had done that earlier we could have avoided the shutdown.
How else are we supposed to look at it?
ObjectivelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I am. We could have avoided the shutdown (or part of it at least) if Democrats weren't playing partisan dick measuring games.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Priceless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Thanks. I try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The House passed that bill on Sept 28th, BEFORE the shutdown. So the Entire thing wouldn't have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Because it's not a "nice perspective" on ACA. It ignores so much while trying to take an emotional angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
When someone posts something that doesn't fit in your world view that doesn't make it non objective....Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This goes for WB too.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
It goes for everyone that posts in the political folders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
‘Not quite the way they sold it’: Kirsten Powers’ insurance premium skyrockets [video]
Kirsten Powers is a liberal.
WB will be along shortly with an excuse.
SHE IS ON FAUX NEWS WHICH IS NOT LIBERAL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I actually like her. She's not a rabid liberal who only toes the party line. My only problem with her is her taste in men.. she used to date Carlos Danger aka The Weiner.
Get with the times man, Fox News is legit now because Rojo agreed with a liberal opinion piece they posted:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...althcare-costs
Valerie Jarrett's daughter Laura and her husband Tony Balkissoon both work for CGI Federal.
Ahahahaha ha ha ha ...shit.
Damn, this could be the scandal the GOP has been looking for. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Dems blame GOP for Healthcare.gov failure
http://liberallogic101.com/wp-conten...elius-5001.jpg
After squandering $640 million of taxpayers’ money on a website that, after almost a whole month, still doesn’t work, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services claims that…wait for it…it’s all the fault of Republicans. Seriously. Here it is in her own words…
"In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing. We did not have the luxury of that with a law that said it’s go time on October 1st and frankly a political atmosphere where the majority party at least in the House was determined to stop this any way they possibly could including shutting down the United States government. So it was not an ideal atmosphere."
http://liberallogic101.com/?p=3312
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Fac...f6_2423896.jpg
Is anyone actually surprised by this? That is how things are done in Washington. Both sides are guilty of it... both sides do it all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
It's not about being a "public servant" anymore. It's all about how to gain power and money.
I always knew you were a closet Libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I was never in the closet :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
OBAMA LIED TO VOTERS
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1
NO INSURANCE FOR YOU!!Quote:
The website, which would-be applicants have found difficult to use, at best, embarrassingly crashed over the weekend, leaving consumers completely locked out.
Then, the White House found itself on the defensive over revelations that despite claims to the contrary by the Obama administration, some who have purchased insurance on the open market will lose their coverage and have to buy new policies.
An insurance industry source told CNN Monday that the vast majority of Americans who have purchased coverage on the individual market will find their policies changed or even canceled under Obamacare rules.
This is all about the "grandfather" rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stor...plans-faq.aspx
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i...d-health-plan/
All health plans must offer certain basic coverage, but plans in existence before the enactment of Obamacare are "grandfathered" and exempt from many of the Obamacare coverage requirements. If an existing health plan makes significant changes after the date of enactment of Obamacare, then it loses its grandfathered status.
I got a letter from my insurance company saying that my plan is grandfathered, and I don't have to do anything because of Obamacare, unless I want to.
If you have an old grandfathered plan, you will have to study its terms carefully if you want to compare it to the plans offered on the exchanges because it won't be summarized in the way plans are on the exchanges.
P.S. It's against the rules of the internet to use all caps.
Now we see the conspiracy come to fruition. Why does the President (so-called) want us to read?
It is also against the rules of the internet to troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Obamacare: More than 2 million people getting booted from existing health insurance plans
I especially love the comment from Jay Carney. "What the president said was if you like your current healthcare plan you don't have to change it...but what he really meant was if we deem the healthcare plan acceptable you don't have to change it."Quote:
(CBS News) CBS News has learned more than two million Americans have been told they cannot renew their current insurance policies -- more than triple the number of people said to be buying insurance under the new Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
There have been estimates about hundreds of thousands of people losing coverage, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported on "CBS This Morning." CBS News has reached out to insurance companies across the country to determine some of the real numbers -- and this is just the tip of the iceberg, Crawford said. The people who are opening the letters are shocked to learn they can't keep their insurance policies despite President Obama's assurances to the contrary.
The White House is on the defensive trying to explain it, after Mr. Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage."
It's an unexpected reality of Obamacare being told through anecdotes in local papers and on social media. But the hard numbers reveal the evidence is far more than anecdotal. CBS News has confirmed with insurance companies across the country that more than two million people are getting notices they no longer can keep their existing plans. In California, there are 279,000; in Michigan, 140,000; Florida, 300,000; and in New Jersey, 800,000. And those numbers are certain to go even higher. Some companies who tell CBS News they've sent letters won't say how many.
Industry experts like Larry Levitt, of the Kaiser Family Foundation, say the insurance companies have no choice. "What we're seeing now is reality coming into play," he said.
Obamacare forces them to drop many of their plans that don't meet the law's 10 minimum standards, including maternity care, emergency visits, mental health treatment and even pediatric dental care.
That means consumers have to sign on to new plans even if they don't want or need the more generous coverage. Industry experts say about half the people getting the letters will pay more -- and half will pay less, thanks to taxpayer subsidies. Levitt said, "The winners outnumber the losers here, but because of all the website problems, it's hard to find out who the winners are because they don't even know it themselves."
And for the people who've gotten the letters, the broken website is a real problem, Crawford added on "CTM." They don't know what to do. They don't know if they get subsidies. And then there are others getting the letters who have very good insurance but are being told they can't keep it. Industry experts CBS News talked to say for everyone, the best bet is to just call their insurance companies to get the information.
Talk about Obama infringing on every citizen's right to the pursuit of happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That damn Heritage Foundation. Those awful conservative notions like making more people have skin in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bRnEt20VD6...per-retard.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm sorry that you're unable to confront basic truths about your closely held obsessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You're an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm sorry that you're confronting this aspect of yourself. A conservative group wrote what you're complaining about. Republicans backed it for years. You may want to claim that you're some sort of extra special cut government spending Libertarian, but there's been about one of those in 50 years and his net impact has been very little. Now that there's a "Libertarian wing" of the Republican Party their net impact has been less cooperation and total gridlock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
What obsession is this you speak of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Lately you're obsessed with the Affordable Care Act. You've cast what is another Obama theft of a conservative policy as the "ULTIMATE EVIL LIBERAL THING OMG SOCIALISM."Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
For at least the third time, i'll explain it to you again. The Heritage Foundation wrote a plan for an individual mandate as an alternative to a single-payer system. They DID NOT write the ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quit trying to prop your arguments up with partial truths. It makes you look foolish.
But how will WB ever debate? Partial truths is all that he has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
http://youtu.be/d-sALU_hveA?t=1m13sQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Almost as much as you are obsessed with "BUT GUYS, IT WUZ A REPUBLICAN PLAN!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Just stop. It's one thing to not realize how obsessive you get, but it's another thing when it's been pointed out again and again.. and you still don't get it.
Since you haven't ever made such a ridiculous suggestion, I'll kick it and the rest on the path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The Heritage Foundation wrote what was adapted into the Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole healthcare plans.
Those plans were blatantly stolen by Mitt Romney.
Romney's plan was stolen almost entirely by Obama.
If you want to be obtuse (which you and they do), the Heritage Foundation didn't personally write Obama's plan, but they'd have a solid case for plagiarism or theft of intellectual property in any college, think tank, or court in the land.
(Not that they'd see it through, given the decision now to declare it OMG ULTIMATE LIBERAL SOCIALISM EVIL. They've even got Thondalar to defend them. It's a big circle of fucking ridiculous.)
You have no room to ever brooch this subject. Ever. You still don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
EDIT:
More fun Republican plagiarism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYg7vSd7RBA
Senator Rand Paul is Methais?
It could be possible. He hasn't proven he didn't Aqua Buddha a young girl in 1990.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I've said it every time you've brought it up. Three times in this thread and one or two in another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So...let me get this straight. 20 years ago the Heritage Foundation wrote a plan for an individual mandate to counter a proposal for a single-payer Healthcare system. This was then "adapted into" Legislation written by someone else, which itself was then "adapted into" someone else's plan, which was then "adapted into" someone else's plan.Quote:
The Heritage Foundation wrote what was adapted into the Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole healthcare plans.
Those plans were blatantly stolen by Mitt Romney.
Romney's plan was stolen almost entirely by Obama.
If you want to be obtuse (which you and they do), the Heritage Foundation didn't personally write Obama's plan, but they'd have a solid case for plagiarism or theft of intellectual property in any college, think tank, or court in the land.
(Not that they'd see it through, given the decision now to declare it OMG ULTIMATE LIBERAL SOCIALISM EVIL. They've even got Thondalar to defend them. It's a big circle of fucking ridiculous.)
By God you're right. It's all the Heritage Foundation's fault!
Just curious...have you actually read the Heritage Foundation's proposal? In it's original form? Exactly how much of that can you directly find in the almost-thousand-page monstrosity that is the Affordable Care Act?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...idual-mandate/Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...idual-mandate/
We'll go with Republicans talking in two outlets of conservative media for 1000, please, Alex.
And I must've not noticed you saying it before. My deepest apologies.
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
The cute bit about Heritage's attempted defense under Butler?Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes
You can buy catastrophic.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes
IN FURTHER RESPONSE TO A FORBES ARTICLE UPDATE (that a lot of you probably won't read)Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes
Enthoven? Totally a conservative too and Heritage put it out past the state/academic level.
I don't get why you keep repeating a really stupid point you are trying to make ad nauseum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You're right.. I don't get it. A couple of times.. ok, but seriously, how often have you brought up your "BUT OBAMACARE WAS ORIGINALLY A REPUBLICAN PLAN GUYS!"? I'm going to say at least 25.
You have a ton of catching up to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
EDIT: I mean no.
It's just not and you don't, not even when you're given the information from sources with a conservative bias. You either don't read them or don't see something fundamental that opposes your worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Just because a Republican think tank wrote it as a counter point to something Carter and Mondale wanted to do doesn't make it good, right or something other conservatives support. Your point is stupid, you are belaboring it to death and seriously, you add no significant content or POV other than to stir the pot and troll like a semi-pro. Stop being a troll, grow up and post something of value. Or just stop posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Ok... so I don't agree with your assertion and didn't the first 24 times you posted it. So your counter to that is to repeat at every opportunity you can until I do agree with your assertion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Those just aren't the facts. If they were you might have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
EDIT:
Him too.
I'm waiting for WB to mention Ayn Rand again.
If you think Republicans have been hypocritical on individual mandates, then you need to Google something to show it. We're the kind of people in this forum who like short videos, not long articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The actual Republican proposal in 1993 was vastly different from Obamacare. The Republican bill, the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today" act -- cool name! -- is what Congress should have passed, instead of Obamacare. Republicans were worried about uninsured freeloaders going to emergency rooms which drove up everybody's insurance premiums by an estimated more than $1,000 per year. To combat that evil, the Republican bill would have required everybody to purchase insurance from an insurance company. If anybody failed to buy insurance, then they would have had to pay a tax penalty. The Republicans weren't going to have any websites or stuff like that. It was no death-panel-driven government takeover of your health like Obamacare is.
If you don't want to believe WB will you believe Newt and Mitt?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Vastly different is a bit of an overstatement. None of these proposals are vastly different since they have so much in common. Even the Paul Ryan plan has much more in common with ACA than it does to the pre-ACA system. The only problem the GOP has is that Obama picked up this ball and ran with it. He got it passed, he ran his elections on it and is making it happen. They tried to discredit him by calling it Obamacare and instead Obama used that to his advantage. This is nothing but partisan politics at it's worst.Quote:
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
ROMNEY: OK.
10/20/2011 @ 8:26AM 42,121 views
How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate
Then, in the spirit of bipartisan peace and harmony.. how about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
We scrap the ACA version and fully implement the Paul Ryan plan. I mean, since the plans are so similar and basically the same, I am certain that would be a proposal you would endorse.. right?
Get elected and make it happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You don't have Congressional representation where you live? If I were you and I honestly believed that both plans are the same, why wouldn't you write your Senators and House Representative and offer such a proposal? It really is that simple and if both are as similar as you suggest, they probably only have to change a word or two in the Law to put it into effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Win/Win!
Why are you so into this as a competition? I made some valid points and even put up a quote from Newt and Mitt going back and forth about who invented the Individual Mandate. Instead of reading that and recognizing that this is a conservative idea, you try to dissemble. Is your ego so firmly attached to your politics? Open your eyes man. If you have a reasonable counterpoint then express it. Otherwise you're just engaging in conversation at a lower and lower intellectual level and it's a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
See the problem is we only dumped almost 700 million into this thing. We should have pumped 10 billion into it then maybe we would be seeing some results.Quote:
The system is down at the moment.
We are experiencing technical difficulties and hope to have them resolved soon. Please try again later.
In a hurry? You might be able to apply faster at our Marketplace call center. Call 1-800-318-2596 to talk with one of our trained representatives about applying over the phone.
Competition? I'm offering a bipartisan solution to this healthcare problem!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You contend that The Affordable Care Act is essentially the same plan as the Paul Ryan plan. Republicans obviously hate the ACA because they are all racist rednecks, but will back the Paul Ryan plan because he's white.
Why not change a couple words to change the ACA into the PRP (RYANCARE!!!) and get to the goal you claim you want... affordable care for everyone!? Isn't that the important part.. or do you believe it will only be successful if it's termed "Obamacare"?
I don't understand why don't like this idea.
I always try to engage in the type of conversation that I believe my audience (in this case, you) will best understand.Quote:
Otherwise you're just engaging in conversation at a lower and lower intellectual level and it's a waste of time.
If 10 billion will be good, imagine how awesome it would be if we spend 100 billion on it! I mean sure, friends and family of the Administration are getting rich off this thing, but that's just a side benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The fact that WB and cwolff are trying to blame the existence and implementation of Obamacare and all the ridiculous shit it's causing on republicans is the funniest thing I've read in this whole thread.
Just out of curiosity, anyone know approximately how many pages the Heritage and Gingrich versions are? Or even Romneycare? And how much non-health care related things they contained buried in it, like the government taking over student loans and whatnot with Obamacare?
How did Romneycare's initial rollout go anyway?
Where's Latrin when you need him?
I heard Satan himself once mentioned forcing everyone to buy insurance from a private company. I guess Obama stole the plan from the dark lord himself.
I don't think they were blaming republicans. They were just pointing out that ACA utilized existing ideas from the Republican Think-tanks. And now they're up in arms about something when they were in avid support of it when it was a republican-run idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I don't think anyone has been saying they're the same in the verbiage in both forms... but the concept that they're based on is the same, and the Republican representatives haven't adequately delineated the differences between their version and the current version (in regards to the individual mandate) that they're upset about.
Unless they're declaring the exceptions to the individual mandate as part of the individual mandate bucket... which I can agree is a valid concern, but I was under the impression that the exceptions to the individual mandates were handled via an appeal process over the last year that was initiated due to the republican pushback.
I did a quick googling on the ACA Exceptions, and found the following
From:
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/0...idual-mandate/
For applicants who qualify for the four remaining exemptions — lack of affordable coverage (premiums for a bronze policy cost more than 8 percent of income), income below the tax filing limit, unlawful presence in the United States, or short term (under 3 months) gaps in coverage — the exchange will not issue a certificate of exemption, but the exemption will rather be claimed at the time of filing for taxes (if at all). An applicant can apply for multiple exemptions simultaneously.
Processing exemption applications. The rule lays out with some specificity how the exchange should process applications for exemptions. Exchanges will use an application form supplied by HHS unless they receive approval for an alternative application form. The application will be separate from the form used to apply for insurance affordability programs, but if an individual submits an application for an insurance affordability program and then an application for exemption, the exchange shall use the information previously collected for the coverage application if relevant to the exemption application.
Is that just because he's black that he's listening to the Dark Lord? Racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I wasn't sure where to put this.. dumb things liberals say or here..
But there are no longer any insurance cancellation notices... they are now called "transition opportunities".