The ladies must be tripping over themselves to hear you talk about your job and view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobmuhthol
Printable View
The ladies must be tripping over themselves to hear you talk about your job and view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobmuhthol
No, just the guys I blow in my "cubicle." Which is insulting, I guess, because Jarvan is homophobic.
Yah, Bob doesn't blow people in a cubicle, he hides male interns under his desk to blow him, get it right people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobmuhthol
My Bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Which means, unless her medical bills are well over 6500 a year, this amazing plan is doing nothing for her but making her sorta feel good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
She only loses if her medical costs are greater than 3$ a month. Her deductible may be $6500.00 but she gets co-pays and other benefits that go along with a typical plan. It's not an all or nothing proposition and she can even have go to a Doctor instead of the ER for basic health needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
There is nothing good about a $6500 deductable... unless you are in great health and don't need any real healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Copays are pretty great. Prescription plans are great. Scheduling a visit with your Doctor when you are sick is pretty great. These are three things that the uninsured poor can't do. I get what you mean about that deductible. If she has a bad accident or falls quite sick she'll be in trouble. The lady has had 4 pay cuts in the past year and is only making 23kish. She can not afford major trauma. Barring a catastrophe though, she's in a better position now than she was before and that's valuable for this family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I suspect "real healthcare" means "that healthcare that specifically proves PB's point, and all other healthcare is irrelevant".
I don't think catastrophe means what you think it does. For acedotal evidence, my kid had a kidney stone and we ended up paying $3000 out of pocket. From this lady's fiscal standpoint, $3000 would be a rather large financial burden on her and her family... but I wouldn't classify a kidney stone as "catastrohe".Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
High deductables are terrible ideas for people who already have difficulty in affording healthcare.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that cwolff and Backlash are the same person. Or at the very least, related. Or perhaps even life partners.
Obamacare Enrollments Surpass 1 Million
Now I'll admit I didn't get me no fancy economics degree in that college thing but if 18% of people lacked medical coverage and so far 1/3 of the people receiving healthcare under Obamacare are signing up for private insurance and the other 2/3 are receiving Medicaid that means if this trend continues a whopping 6% of Americans will be added to private health insurance plans because of Obamacare. Exactly how is this being paid for? I thought the whole idea was that a massive influx of people buying private health insurance was going to bring costs down for everyone?Quote:
From Oct. 1 through Nov. 30, almost 365,000 people enrolled into private health insurance via the federal and state marketplaces and more than 803,000 were deemed eligible for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, according to the department.
How many of those 6% of people are in such bad health that they would actually drain the system instead of contributing to it?
I told yous guys to be patient. Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
Are you serious? They are counting putting in the cart as signed up. Can't find any true numbers but as low as 15% of those sent payment in for their plan. Tell me how good it is Jan 1. I am more than willing to eat all the crow on my plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Attachment 5998Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
You can't unsee this or unhear it. I am not sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GmY8KH03rM
I...umm. Eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Why do you hate us, Ninjas? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Obamacare Seen As Making Coverage Worse For Some: Poll
Obama! Obama! Obama!Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans who already have health insurance are blaming President Barack Obama's health care overhaul for their rising premiums and deductibles, and overall 3 in 4 say the rollout of coverage for the uninsured has gone poorly.
An Associated Press-GfK poll finds that health care remains politically charged going into next year's congressional elections. Keeping the refurbished HealthCare.gov website running smoothly is just one of Obama's challenges, maybe not the biggest.
The poll found a striking level of unease about the law among people who have health insurance and aren't looking for government help. Those are the 85 percent of Americans who the White House says don't have to be worried about the president's historic push to expand coverage for the uninsured.
In the survey, nearly half of those with job-based or other private coverage say their policies will be changing next year — mostly for the worse. Nearly 4 in 5 (77 percent) blame the changes on the Affordable Care Act, even though the trend toward leaner coverage predates the law's passage.
Sixty-nine percent say their premiums will be going up, while 59 percent say annual deductibles or copayments are increasing.
Only 21 percent of those with private coverage said their plan is expanding to cover more types of medical care, though coverage of preventive care at no charge to the patient has been required by the law for the past couple of years.
Fourteen percent said coverage for spouses is being restricted or eliminated, and 11 percent said their plan is being discontinued.
"Rightly or wrongly, people with private insurance looking at next year are really worried about what is going to happen," said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, who tracks public opinion on health care issues. "The website is not the whole story."
Employers trying to control their health insurance bills have been shifting costs to workers for years, but now those changes are blamed increasingly on "Obamacare" instead of the economy or insurance companies.
Political leanings seemed to affect perceptions of eroding coverage, with larger majorities of Republicans and independents saying their coverage will be affected.
The White House had hoped that the Oct. 1 launch of open enrollment season for the uninsured would become a teaching moment, a showcase of the president's philosophy that government can help smooth out the rough edges of life in the modern economy for working people.
Instead the dysfunctional website became a parable for Republicans and others skeptical of government.
At the same time, a cresting wave of cancellation notices hit millions who buy their policy directly from an insurer. That undercut one of Obama's central promises — that you can keep the coverage you have if you like it. The White House never clearly communicated the many caveats to that promise.
Disapproval of Obama's handling of health care topped 60 percent in the poll.
With the website working better and enrollments picking up, Democrats are hoping negative impressions will quickly fade in the rearview mirror. The poll found that Democrats still have an edge over Republicans, by 32 percent to 22 percent, when it comes to whom the public trusts to handle health care.
But other potential bumps are just ahead for Obama's law.
It's unclear whether everyone who wants and needs coverage by Jan. 1 will be able to get it through the new online insurance markets. Some people who have to switch plans because their policies were cancelled may find that their new insurance covers different drugs, or that they have to look for other doctors.
In the poll, taken just after the revamped federal website was unveiled, 11 percent of Americans said they or someone in their household had tried to sign up for health insurance in the new marketplaces.
Sixty-two percent of those said they or the person in their household ran into problems. About one-fourth of all who tried managed to enroll. Half said they were not able to buy insurance, and the remaining quarter said they weren't sure.
Phyllis Dessel, 63, of Reading, Pa., believes she is finally enrolled after 50 attempts online. The retired social worker, a political independent, currently has her own private insurance.
When Dessel described her experience, she jokingly asked, "Do you mind if I cry?"
Thanks to tax credits available under the law, she was able to save about $100 a month on her coverage. But she had to switch carriers because a plan with her current insurer cost more than she was willing to pay. She hasn't gotten an invoice yet from her new insurance company.
The premiums were "not at all" what she expected, said Dessel. "They were much, much higher."
A supporter of Obama's overhaul, she believes changes are needed to make the coverage more affordable.
"I think with a lot of amendments or updates, it could be very, very helpful and beneficial," said Dessel. "I know a lot of people who don't have insurance. My hairdresser, my plumber don't have insurance and they're not going to get it if it's not affordable."
The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Dec. 5-9 and involved online interviews with 1,367 adults. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for all respondents.
The survey was conducted using KnowledgePanel, a probability-based Internet panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Respondents to the survey were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods, and were later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't otherwise have access to the Internet were provided with the ability to access the Internet at no cost to them.
LBJ didn't even get nominated by his own party as a sitting President, an unprecedented backlash. Therefore, if the Democratic Party suffers losses in the Congressional elections it will mean that the ACA is as good as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I may not like everything about President Obama, but I have to respect his bravery in fighting for a disempowered minority rather than kowtowing to popular opinion.
AHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Attachment 6013
You should be the White House's permanent spin doctor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I am now positive that Latrinsorm is Jay Carney. No one could possibly say shit this stupid unless they're being paid for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ster_Ended.htm
Isn't the affordable healthcare act what he ran and won his last election on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
No. He ran and won his first election on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
He ran away from the ACA during the last election.. because people were beginning to wake up and realize what a steaming pile of shit this law is. That's when asked about it, he had to say shit like "If you like your insurance, you can keep it!" "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!" knowing full well that it was bullshit.
Attachment 6014Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
:)
Of course, in the same way that Johnson was re-elected in 1964 (after the terrorist Lee Harvey al-Oswald killed JFK), because nobody read the CRA until 1968 and then they were all "hey, wait a minute!" plus LBJ was all "a hyuck hyuck hyuck" and took a selfie at MLK's funeral, which Lady Bird was very unimpressed with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Do you write your own material?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
You mean after JFK's CIA driver shot him in the face right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec-8mD_BhrU
Sometimes when I need inspiration I summon the Wolf, it goes a little something like this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
http://scarygoround.com/strips/20131129.png
(click for source)
Now that's funny, even if it comes from Latrin.
Source? oh wait...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I first read Lady Bird as Larry Bird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The story became far less interesting when I realized my error.
I'm just asking the question, was Larry Bird married to a United States President in 1968?
Can you prove that he wasn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
This is not true, He and the Dems DID run on ACA in the 2012 election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Usually in the opposite direction mind you...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-w...2012-election/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-whit...2012-election/
This is great. And I mean that.
Another hard lesson to learn for anyone that would trust in the myth of efficiency from a monolithic collectivism-based government to legislate any aspect of an individual’s life. Stories range from Maryland’s exchange director going on vacation (as the O-Care exchange website imploded) to dishonesty at the highest levels as Sebelius ducks questions on the “Lie of the Year.”
Now this report of Washington state families who can’t pay their bills because the WA State Exchange is erroneously debiting funds from their bank accounts.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...bamacare-fees/
The future of American Healthcare with the ACA...
http://i44.tinypic.com/142g6fn.jpg
I have to admit if Obamacare brings us real live Pokemon I just might change my attitude towards the law.
I don't really care about rep anymore.. and decided to not respond to it.. but this one is so special it made me laugh.
Red Rep -
Thread: More Obamacare fuckups
Liberal faggot
Someone doesn't know me does they?
You damn hippy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Well I do have a beard.. to could be hippy.. or redneck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I KNEW IT! Jarvan's a dope smoking hippy. I bet he sleeps in a tie dye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
So now the Obama administration is "pressuring" insurance companies to start coverage on the first of January but not accept payment until the 10th.
Is this even legal? No seriously, no partisan bullshit or rhetoric, is it legal for the president to "pressure" a private company to basically offer it's product for free without any sort of law coming from Congress?
Now, now, what did we agree on about the Huffington Post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's an honest and legitimate news source?Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Oh so what, a polite request from a black man is "pressure"? RACISM
One time a black man asked me for a dollar so he could take the bus home and I felt so threatened I handed over my wallet. True story :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
It was legal to force you to buy it against your will in the first place soooooooooQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's okay they've offered to bail out any insurance companies that lose profits to this whole thing.
So I just found out about Pajama Boy.
http://neoneocon.com/wp-content/uplo.../pajamaBoy.jpg
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Why do you hate lazy people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Because they want me to pay for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Now I know where I know this guy from...
http://i.imgur.com/gxofmHJ.jpg
I'd rather they pay for health insurance than not pay for it or not pay their taxes.
Too bad that they're not going to pay for health insurance either. Maybe they'll pay their taxes, assuming they have a job that lets them show up in their footie jammies and a nice cup of hot cocoa that mommy made just for him.
If the campaign to stop them paying more (because you want to pay more for them?) fails even a little bit and a few do that's less that the rest of us have to pay when they get sick and go to the emergency room. I want to pay for as few hipsters as possible.
We can go back and forth all day about how that demographic already isn't buying into Obamacare, and those are the people that Obamacare is banking on enrolling in order to fund the bulk of it, and without them it's going to crumble.
But I think our time would be better spent on laughing at how the Obama White House honestly believes that pajama boy is an effective advertising campaign for its target audience.
It's pretty ridiculous... but they are hipsters. This guy totally looks like one of their people.
Apparently WB is unaware that even by Obama's figures one million people have enrolled for private insurance through Obamacare while almost 4 million have qualified for Medicaid. That means going by the figures we have so far there is an 80% chance that he will be paying for every person who signs up through Obamacare.
I'm sure this somehow makes me racist or homophobic though.
The poor job of selling the plan to the public/number of failed websites/current low enrollment are why we have hipster ads, right?
(If you trying to make us pay for more hipsters involves rationalizing some more racism I'll call you on it but I can't see how so far.)
Why are people still talking about this after 67 pages. This law is fucked, as it always will be.
Two days ago Obama delayed the individual mandate for anyone with cancelled policies, while also allowing them an exemption to purchase now-illegal catastrophic insurance policies. To do this he used his divine imperial power that of course is one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch. "Don't like a law? Issues a blog post that changes it, no congress needed." ....
But the runaway executive power, and the rampant problem of standing being required to challenge such unconstitutional power grabs in court, is another thread.
This law was doomed to begin with, and people are now seeing why. They had to execute almost perfectly for it to work, but the minute they created a mandate with no teeth it was over. Maybe it would have taken longer to implode if not for everything else, but it would still have imploded.
The law added a bunch of bells and whistles and made them mandatory, the only possible way for that to economically work would be for the young to subsidize the old, the healthy the sick. To achieve this they used the individual mandate. The government would force young and healthy people to buy insurance coverage above and beyond what they need. Only the mandate had no teeth, so they enlist Jay Z and Amy Poehler to try to talk young people into paying above market rates for health insurance. But young people are poor, and chafe at having to subsidize relatively wealthier people in their 50s at the peak of their earning power. But maybe they would have still pulled it off... except then they flushed a few hundred million of our dollars down the toilet on an overpriced website coded by some congressman's 14 year old nephew.
This matters because, all things being equal, who is more likely to persevere through a difficult enrollment process? The healthy person or the sick person?
Initial premiums were also higher than anticipated because all those bells and whistles are not free. This matters because, all things being equal, who is more likely to be willing to pay a large amount for health insurance? The person who is healthy and feels he may not need it, or the sick person who knows he will?
Then you have all those people in the individual market who had insurance cancelled, and then less than a week before christmas and 10 days before new years Obama thinks he can wave his wand and change the law. This matters because, assuming he is successful with his wand waving bullshit, if you're a sick person do you choose a cadillac exchange plan, or go with your cheap old catastrophic plan suddenly made legal again?
Not everyone will follow the obvious choice, but enough will that the exchange plan risk pools will be overburdened with sick people, which will increase exchange plan rates, which will further drive healthy people out of the exchange (because again, mandate has no teeth) which will increase rates, etc. This is called adverse selection, or simply, a death spiral. At this point, without changes in the law, it is going to happen.
Period. And I don't mean "period" as in "If you like your health plan, you can keep it, period." I mean actually "period." Its over, might else well start trying to figure out what comes next.
It's more because the White House is so out of touch that they think little bitch man-children like pajama boy represent the majority of males in that demographic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...op_460x276.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
http://soapboxnz.files.wordpress.com...es21.jpg?w=700
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kelly...hankbone_7.jpg
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/james...ipster-007.jpg
Are they so far off the mark?
Despite how vocal and obnoxious they are, they aren't representative of the majority of males in that age bracket....yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's not much different than with gay people...if you based it on media shenanigans, you'd think gay people made up 75% of the population when in reality they're only like 1-3%.
That second hipster's mustache is pretty epic though. I bet it defines his entire existence.
Age bracket? No. People without insurance bracket? I'm not so sure. There were quite a lot of Occupy protestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The age bracket of pajama boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
This one is too perfect to not include here:
http://media.cagle.com/62/2013/12/22/142174_600.jpg
Obamacare brand Heroin?
Come on, Obama. I know you want to get the word out for people to signup for Obamacare but this is crazy.
Thanks, WB. Overnight you have managed to suck everyone's sense of humor right outta them!Quote:
Thread: More Obamacare fuckups
he didn't really do that, duh
Now that you're losing Obama you need somebody else to blame it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
WB you know as well as I do that we're repealing the 22nd Amendment so our savior can continue serving until he is inevitably assassinated by white militants.
Tags for this Thread
Add / Edit Tags
back sucks obama's penis, tisket invented obamacare, tisket reads clubs
lol
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
OH WOW! They got to 1 million people signing up on the website. That is like what, $6 plus per sign up? I am pretty sure a call center could do it for less and irritate less people even if they were in India that this POS website. Seriously, when this thing implodes and people find out that far far less people actually got enrolled in insurance and then they discover how truely BAD the policies are, we can only Hope for Change.
http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...30&id=17222320
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Quote:
"It looks like current enrollment is around 2 million despite all the issues," said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Avalere Health, a market analysis firm. "It was a very impressive showing for December."
So we're at negative 2.7 million people have health insurance because of Obamacare?Quote:
Officials are also working to prevent gaps in coverage for at least 4.7 million Americans whose individual policies were canceled this fall because they fell short of the law's requirements.
Whew! If I were one of those people I sure as hell know I'd rather have no insurance and a waiver to not pay a penalty that didn't exist before instead of having insurance! Thanks, Obama!Quote:
The administration has said that even if those individuals don't sign up for new plans, they can seek a waiver that would spare them from the law's tax penalty for remaining uninsured.
Poorly written, poorly executed; as I said from the start.
Every American being healthy is a wonderful idea that I fully endorse.
This was not the way to accomplish that.
That's exactly right, if you don't include the additional 4 million people who qualified for the expanded Medicaid and CHIP and if you don't compare the quality of the insurance policies that were lost and gained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My bad. So we're negative 2.7 million private health insurance plans?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
I thought the influx of people buying health insurance plans was what was going to bring healthcare costs down for everyone?
Why did you think that? Did someone say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yes. Back. You should know this ClydeR...seeing as you are Back!Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!
The 6 million signed up for Obamacare figure?
Inflated by oh... 3.1 million
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/13/news...html?iid=HP_LN
That would be awesome if they keep counting people already on Medicaid as people who "signed up" under Obamacare. Imagine when the number of people signing up under Obamacare exceeds the number of people who were uninsured to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Too funny.
Quote:
Young adults from 18 to 34 are only 24 percent of total enrollment, the administration said in its first signup figures broken down for age, gender and other details. With the HealthCare.gov website now working, the figures cover the more than 2 million Americans who had signed up for government-subsidized private insurance through the end of December in new federal and state markets.
Enrolling young and healthy people is important because they generally pay more into the system than they take out, subsidizing older adults. While 24 percent is not a bad start, say independent experts, it should be closer to 40 percent to help keep premiums down.
Adults ages 55-64 were the most heavily represented in the signups, accounting for 33 percent of the total. Overall, the premiums paid by people in that demographic don't fully cover their medical expenses. Some are in the waiting room for Medicare; that coverage starts at age 65.
Really? They're touting a 2 million sign up figure and don't know how many of those didn't have insurance previously?Quote:
For example, the administration is unable to say how of many of those enrolling for coverage had been previously uninsured. Some might have been among the more than 4.7 million insured people whose previous policies were canceled because they didn't meet the law's standards.
What a joke.
Not at all... they are "Unable to say" that doesn't mean they don't know. They just are "unable to say". Granted, they may really not know. Which begs to question, why wasn't one of the questions to enroll.. "Do you have, or had health insurance, or where you uninsured?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Writing at Redstate, which just got bought for a lot of money, Erick Erickson says that Republican bigwigs are changing their position on Obamacare.
Quote:
Conservative and Republican affiliated groups have started the 2014 assault against Democrats who support Obamacare. At the very same time, it is increasingly clear Republicans are laying the groundwork to abandon their opposition to Obamacare.
More...
They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now aren't they?
Two words: Joe BidenQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Looks like marijuana is being added to what is covered by Obamacare.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...hol/?hpt=hp_t2
He must had spent a good portion of the past 5 years being high, considering the policies that were pushed by his Administration.Quote:
“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol,” Obama told the weekly magazine.
Jimmy Kimmel on Obamacare
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/1088...eople-support/
If only some group had warned us all about this tragedy before it was passed. If only mass media didn't cover up the facts, berate the detractors and frame the whole thing as a racial/class warfare issue. If only it could have been examined before the votes were cast in a transparent government. If only illiterate and disinterested citizens hadn't been bribed out of their stupor to vote for a Marxist President by a social action group that was later investigated for fraud.
If only . . .
But we had to pass it so that we could find out what was in it!Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Employees at Target lose healthcare insurance due to Obamacare
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/22/news...html?iid=HP_LN
Greedy bastards! Why do they hate poor people so much??Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Target must be a racist company.
It's just an aberration. No way is it a trend.Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's uninsured rate dropped modestly this month as the major coverage expansion under President Barack Obama's health care law got underway, according to a closely watched survey released Thursday.
The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index found that the uninsured rate for U.S. adults dropped by 1.2 percentage points in January, to 16.1 percent. The biggest change was for unemployed people, a drop of 6.7 percentage points. That was followed by a 2.6 percentage-point decline for nonwhites. Traditionally both groups are far more likely to be uninsured than the population as a whole.
The survey found no appreciable change among young adults ages 18-34. Members of that coveted, low-cost demographic have been ambivalent about signing up so far.
More...
Gotta love HuffPost.
Target Cuts Health Care. For Some, It's Not A Bad Thing
I love how they start out saying that Target is actually doing people a favor by dropping their healthcare coverage then towards the bottom of the article after everyone has fallen asleep or skipped to the next article they talk about all of the bad things that are happening to people as a result of Target's decision.Quote:
When Target announced last week that it would be slashing health benefits for part-time workers, one of those part-timers said she was actually happy to receive a letter saying she wouldn’t have Target-sponsored health care come April 1. “It’s probably a really good thing,” said the employee, who makes slightly more than $9 an hour setting up displays at an Arizona Target.
“If they kept that in place, I probably wouldn’t be able to go to HealthCare.gov,” she said. The worker, who asked for anonymity to protect her job, said she was already scoping out her options on the government-run health care site before Target made the announcement. She hasn't gotten to the point of doing a direct price comparison yet, but the 63-year-old already determined that she'll be able to choose a plan under Obamacare with fewer co-pays than her Target coverage, so she'll pay less or nothing at all when she visits the doctor.
"It was great to have health coverage, it was better than what a lot of people had, but was it a great plan? No, not really," she said.
As Target, Trader Joe’s and others face criticism for cutting health benefits in response to the new law, the reality is that some, like the 63-year-old Arizona Target employee, may actually be better off by being forced to turn to the marketplaces set up as part of the Affordable Care Act for coverage.
“They could very well come out ahead,” taking the $500 provided by Target to pay for coverage and enrolling in a plan through Obamacare, said Ken Jacobs, the chair of the University of California-Berkeley’s Labor Center.
Some workers may make so little that they qualify for free coverage under the law's Medicaid expansion. And for workers making up to roughly 250 percent of the poverty level, or about $28,000 a year for 2013, the subsidies they'd get by enrolling in coverage through Obamacare could be worth more than the tax breaks they'd get for opting into their company-sponsored insurance, according to an analysis from Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
That includes a mix of tax credits on a sliding scale, as well as extra subsidies to cut out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-insurance.
As the Target blog post announcing the change notes, in many cases workers could be disqualified from taking advantage of the Obamacare subsidies if they still had the opportunity to opt for affordable coverage through Target. When contacted by The Huffington Post, a Target spokeswoman said the company couldn’t say what share of part-time workers would be affected by the changes because the number of part-time workers “fluctuates often." In the blog post, the company said less than 10 percent of its total workforce participates in the plan being discontinued.
“Target could be doing some of their workers a favor,” said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. “They’ve become eligible for subsidies in the exchanges, and that may be better for them.”
Still, “the devil is in the details,” according to Fronstin. If a worker lives in a state that didn't expand Medicaid under the law and they make poverty-level wages or less -- a real possibility for a part-time worker making slightly more than minimum wage -- they'd get no subsidies or tax breaks to help with the cost of coverage, very likely making it unaffordable. Premium tax credits and out-of-pocket subsidies are only available to those who earn between poverty and four times that amount, because Congress intended the Medicaid expansion to be mandatory nationwide, a plan upended by the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that states could opt out.
And while some workers may have incomes low enough to qualify for subsidies on their own, their spouses may make enough to disqualify them. That’s the case for one Target warehouse worker, who asked to remain anonymous to protect his job. “They said flat out in the bottom of the page [of HealthCare.gov)], you don’t qualify, because my wife makes too much money to be considered low-income,” the worker said.
Going on his wife’s insurance isn’t financially feasible either, he said, because it would cost “half her paycheck per week.” The worker, who makes $9 an hour, said even though he likes his job, he’s looking around for other work because he needs the health coverage.
“I don’t want Obamacare, I have insurance,” he said. “Even if I qualified for it, I don’t need government assistance if [Target] just keeps helping me.”
It's worth noting that Target's decision to offer benefits to part-time workers in the first place is relatively uncommon. In addition, the company waited to drop coverage until it seemed part-time workers would have a viable alternative.
Still, Target and others companies' decisions to cut part-time benefits highlights a “weakness” in Obamacare’s employer mandate, Jacobs said, because it allows employers that traditionally offered part-time benefits as a way to attract the best workers a reason to drop the coverage. Some part-time workers erupted at Trader Joe's after the company announced in September that it would be slashing benefits. Many said they opted to work at Trader Joe's for the company's generous benefits, which are atypical of grocery industry.
As the Trader Joe's example illustrates, an unintended consequence of Obamacare could be to push companies to "race to the bottom," Jacobs said, as they get rid of benefits for part-time workers because they now have a viable alternative.
“We wouldn’t expect a large number of employers to be cutting benefits for many workers. This low-wage, part-time work is where you expect to see it take place,” Jacobs said.
I also like how their first example of someone "benefiting" from this situation flat out admitted she hasn't done any direct price comparisons yet and the person who said he doesn't like this decision has done direct price comparisons.
Only in Obama's America!
Seriously, like Target gives a shit about its employees? If that were the case wouldn't they be giving all of their employees a platinum level healthcare plan while paying for 100% of the premiums? "No no no no no! We're doing our employees a favor by slashing their benefits!" And the sheeple gobble it up like candy.
Target found a way to save money while attempting to look like the "good guy".
A couple Obamacare fuckups from Denver recently.
1) Crossfit coach from Denver paralyzed in freak accident 1/14; No health insurance.
2) Clients of mine have a friend who needed an emergency apendectomy last week. No health insurance.
The fuckup here is that we're all going to have to pay the freight for these two. Too bad the individual mandate isn't enforced yet.
I don't understand this train of thought. It's not like if someone goes to the hospital without insurance that the hospital just treats them free of charge and passes the bill onto the next schmuck who pays their bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Except they do. Then you rationalize about it and whinge a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Really? If someone walks in without insurance the hospital just treats them for free? Really? They don't send them a bill? Am I on Candid Camera? Is this thing on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That is true. We all end up paying for it in some manner but you will not personally be paying for these two. You pay through having higher costs in the entire system. A few people don't matter, but it adds up since we have more then a few people who are uninsured but still use the health care system. It's a big reason why the GOP pushed so hard for individual mandates (catastrophic coverage) initially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I think you misunderstood my point. The hospital still charges someone without insurance. They are still obligated to pay that bill. True they might just ignore it or they might file for bankruptcy and have it written off but this thinking that if someone walks into a hospital without insurance they are treated for free and have no obligation to pay is just mind boggling. Especially considering many people without insurance make an effort to pay their hospital bill and in many cases pay the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'm not so sure about many paying cash for hospital stays. Even a minor event costs way more than most folks can afford. I do get that they are obligated to the payment, but it ain't getting paid. The hospital will take it as a loss and move on. All those losses getting absorbed means they have to charge more somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I think it depends largely on the treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
In the case of the paralyzed coach I'm sure he's not going to bother paying and will just file for bankruptcy.
The cost of the appendectomy could be as little as 5-10k. The person could choose to setup payment arrangements and pay 150 or so a month until it's paid off.
This is from 2011. So we end up paying for most of them from our taxes and not from our insurance premiums. I wonder where the break even point is that would make sense to just buy everyone insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
His research has found that privately insured individuals don't end up paying higher premiums to make up for the uninsured because hospitals that serve lower-income families don't have a lot of patients with insurance. He said the government pays about 75% of those unpaid hospital bills either by direct payment or through a disproportionate payment of Medicaid.
"It affects taxes, not premiums," he said. "The privately insured are still paying for it."
The government paying the bills would (in theory) make the most sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Remember where I said we'd get to you rationalizing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is you defending the disproportionately high costs of the current system. Its so cool!
Uhh? What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Make an outlandish claim about attempted reform and defend some apathy and inaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The best part is the line about co-pays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I have never seen an obamacare plan that doesn't have a copay. So I am really not sure what they are smoking.Quote:
"but the 63-year-old already determined that she'll be able to choose a plan under Obamacare with fewer co-pays than her Target coverage, so she'll pay less or nothing at all when she visits the doctor."
Wasn't there a figure that it costs something like 42.7 billion a year to pay for the people that go to the hospital and don't pay their bill? It's supposedly shifted to the people WITH insurance. Well.. here is a shocker. If everyone is insured, those premiums still won't go down, so we will still be paying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Also.. Obamacare is going to cost over a trillion for 10 years.. so that's 2.5 times as much to insure the people, as if we left it alone. Another shocker.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7693848Quote:
"Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group. "
Why do you hate poor people, Jarvan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
You're looking at it wrong...of course. It's indisputable that we'd be better off if everyone were insured. Why do you even fight this fight. Less write offs for big corporations, less bankruptcy, better credit in the population, better preventive care. The list goes on and on. You may disagree with ACA but you can't be against each person carrying insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Read this again. Not everyone's saying that this directly affects premiums.
Quote:
Jack Hadley, senior health services researcher at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., pointed out that uninsured people are charged as much as two-thirds more than what insured people are charged because insurers are able to negotiate prices.
His research has found that privately insured individuals don't end up paying higher premiums to make up for the uninsured because hospitals that serve lower-income families don't have a lot of patients with insurance. He said the government pays about 75% of those unpaid hospital bills either by direct payment or through a disproportionate payment of Medicaid.
I am all for each person having insurance. But it's THEIR responsibility, not mine. Why is it my responsibility to make sure that Jane gets free birth control? Or Jerry can try to jump his skateboard (at age 27) down 13 flights of stairs? These are choices they are making, not me. There is no sane reason why I should have to pay for them to do these things. The only reason anyone ever comes up with is Moral Obligations. Why is it a Moral obligation for me to have to pay for it, and not a moral obligation for them to not fucking do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Answer me that, why is it Morally right to require me to pay for a woman's birth control, but it is NOT morally right for me to say she just shouldn't be fucking people without a condom? Or better yet, wait till she is ready to have a kid? Isn't she CHOOSING to have unprotected, or hell, protected sex?
Yes, there are times and places were people don't choose certain things. No one, generally, chooses to be struck by a car while crossing the street. Nor chooses to get cancer (unless they did something to cause it.. yeah that's you you smokers).
Bankruptcy for healthcare is mostly people that HAVE healthcare. people that are uninsured don't normally bother. They just take the credit rating hit for 7 years and keep going about their life.
Let me ask you this.. since it's obvious so far that the majority of people signing up are getting nearly free healthcare. Who is paying for it?
I'd actually argue that it's more fiscal than moral, because babies cost more than the pills that prevent them. Why should it be up to the guy for birth control? If I give a fake name at a dive bar to pick up some hoochie, what's the incentive for me to bag it? I'll be out of there, untracable, before the sun comes up. Subsequently, if they're given up, I'm not saying it's causal, but I thought it was well established that a large percentage of kids from foster care end up on the welfare/prison track, which subsequent also just cost additional money. If you disagree with that, then the actual act of giving birth may cost more than the pills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
This is an interesting response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
First of all, the article doesn't claim she has literally (haaaay) no co-pays, only that she has fewer than another plan.
Putting that aside, if I may offer a schematic of your thought process:
1. I have a belief.
2. Evidence is presented that contradicts that belief.
3. That evidence is obviously wrong.
4. Goto (1).
That doesn't strike you as the tiniest bit circular? Or at least trapezoidal?It's all in the contract you signed when you became an American citizen. And don't give me that "infants can't give contractual consent" bullshit, the Supreme Court clearly held against that in 1989's the State of New York vs. Oscar Barrett.Quote:
Why is it my responsibility to make sure that Jane gets free birth control?
All of us. In the same way that public utilities are dramatically cheaper than they would be if privatized, in the same way that unions can negotiate wages far better than individual workers, in the same way that a pack of humans can take down a mammoth that would flatten Nimrod... we are always stronger together than the strongest alone.Quote:
Let me ask you this.. since it's obvious so far that the majority of people signing up are getting nearly free healthcare. Who is paying for it?
You do know a woman can carry a condom, right? As for incentive, not dying of aids is always an incentive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
I second this. I know Whirlin's mom always has one on her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
This has to be farking huge:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/30/news...html?iid=HP_LN
DUH!!! a significant portion of the uninsured are so because they *DO NOT WANT TO PAY WITH THEIR OWN $$$* (they rather get healthcare on others' $$$)Quote:
Around one in five people who picked health insurance policies on the state and federal exchanges last year haven't paid their first month's premiums, according to insurers polled by CNNMoney. These folks will likely see their policy selection canceled and they'll be left uninsured.
Some 2.1 million people signed up for a plan in time for their coverage to start January 1, according to the Obama administration. But with the payment deadlines stretching until January 31 at the latest, anywhere between 12% and 30% of those folks still haven't paid up, insurers say.
Most consumers were given until the middle or the end of January to pay their first premium, a necessary step to actually activating enrollment. Exchange officials and insurers repeatedly stressed the importance of sending in that first payment, with some following up with the slackers by phone or letter.
The true enrollment figure likely won't be known for a few weeks.
That could be a disaster for the first year. We do need the individual penalties. People who aren't insured today, aren't just going to go get it because it's good to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Here's another thing to factor into the coverage numbers. I signed up for ACA in CO when we were talking about this in October. Actually I did not sign up, I only wanted to check the costs for low income people so I created an account with $5,000.00 in monthly income then was able to view all the prices. I received my ACA card for medicare in the mail. I wonder how many of the medicare people are real accounts too.
Kinda like getting your AARP card before you are even 30...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No kidding. AARP at least is just a private $ making machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I noticed that the GOP responses ( I think there were 4 of them but I didn't see each ) to the SOTU didn't mention repealing ACA. What's up with that?
Because the establishment doesn't want to get rid of it, they just want to be in control of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The IRS employees are going to be seriously pissed when they're sent out to collect lame ass politically motivated penalties. Unless of course they contract it out to scummy private collection agencies.
The way I understand how it works they can't even do that. All they can do is withhold any future refunds the person might be entitled to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
I have been to the doctor once in the last ten years. Cost of that visit: 188 dollars (Included medication with no insurance). Kinda silly to force some people to pay 100+ bucks a month for something you never use. It would be like buying a boat and making payments but you live in a state that has no lakes.
I think you're missing the point of insurance...Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
When did you schedule your cancer, car accident, and heart attack?
Pay the bill when it happens. I'm 29 right now, say I have a heart attack at age 75 with no other major medical needs. My insurance say costs me 200 dollars a month for decent coverage. I'd rather put that 110k into a retirement plan then stupid ass insurance I don't even use. Over that time that money if properly invested could easily pay for any medical fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
(And yes I have company paid insurance.)
Depending on where you live, you may be underestimating the costs. According to the first google hit that I got when I searched for heart attack treatment costs:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/08/news...ospital-bills/
Looks like it can range from 3300 to 92k for treatment.
So, if you got a heart attack before like... 60ish, you're just gonna die?
Nope, in 30 years I'll just have them inject me with some nanites and I'll be out in an hour duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Didn't you chastise me in another thread for not responding to questions people pose on here? Then you come up with this drivel? How the fuck is anyone even supposed to respond to this? Whirlin's gently trying to educate you on the subject. I guess that's one way. Will it help? Hopefully, but I expect you already know the answers on this and are just being provocative or trying to make some partisan point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Nanites are even more expensive man! Those things are like, $5m a pop! And it takes at least like, 17 of them to fix up a heart in an hour!Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Trust me, I'm a scientist.
His point was "pay the bill when it happens." How is that being provocative?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Yes, insurance is (typically) a great thing to have. You pay a little in each month and won't get slapped with a huge bill when you need it.
But if you're young chances are you won't need medical attention for a few years, possible even a decade or longer. It that sense it could make more sense to not pay for insurance and if you do need to see a doctor pay for the visit with your own money. I've done this before in the past.
Heck I even shelled at almost 2000 dollars to have one of those fancy xrays done. CT scan? I dunno. It was expensive though but considering I didn't need any other medical care for several years afterwards I actually saved money by not having insurance.
It's not about your lame "stop reform now" anecdotes. It's about the ones that bankrupt people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Exactly, I paid for the service when I needed it. If I would have been paying the 200 dollars a month for those ten years I would have spent 24000 dollars for the one 188 dollar doctor visit. I saved myself 23,812 dollars over those ten years by not having insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Are we really going over this bankrupt thing again? Didn't we already establish that most people who file bankruptcy for medical reasons have insurance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quality of coverage is also a factor. That's why all those stories "I'M LOSING MY HEALTH PLAN!" weren't telling the whole picture. You're right though. ACA is no guarantee that the uncovered portion gets paid. It will improve collection of payment though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
"A lot of Americans are struggling with medical bills," said NerdWallet Health Vice President Christina LaMontagne.
NerdWallet estimates that households containing 1.7 million people will file for bankruptcy protection this year.
Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.
And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.
High-deductible insurance plans requiring consumers to pay more out-of-pocket costs are a challenge for many households.
Medical bills ain't shit. Now student loans, they are evil as shit. You can send the hospital 20 bucks a month if you want for good faith payments. Try doing that shit with a student loan.
Who's fault is it for having a student loan? I have no sympathy at all for graduates with a mountain of debt. Get a fucking job and pay it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
So why exactly do you not want anything to ever improve? I'm far more curious about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Where did I say I didn't ever want anything to improve?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Please cite me examples of where I said that before we proceed with any back and forth.
Why can we not allow people the *choice* of forgoing insurance, and paying it when the occasion presents itself, as Johnny-Five has outlined?
In the meantime, why can we not allow people, *who made said choice*, but are unable to afford the requisite healthcare because of no insurance, to die from being ill/sick?
It is the fixation on "life is precious" that has gotten us into this problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs.
When we reach the point with our dogs/cats/etc becoming too old and/or prone to poor health, we let them go ("it costs too much for little improvement" & "poor quality of life" being prevalent reasons in doing so).
We need to embrace the same approach with humanity.
Hey, It worked in Logan's Run right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Seriously though, you are not the only person here who has expressed this desire. I encourage you to push this agenda and try to get it as a part of the next election. Until you guys get the country to the point that we're willing to let folks die in the streets you're never going to win this argument. On a side note; this will create a great opportunity for us to have our own American version of Mother Theresa!
You snipe and quibble and whine about anything other than the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'd be ashamed of my country if we let anyone die intentionally who needed help. That isn't what our country is about, regardless of the choices said person may have made. Some things you just have to nut up and accept sometimes life isn't fair and people take advantage of a situation.
That's better than the alternative being someone who made all the right choices, but was unfortunate in life and they die because our country sucked.
I said it at some point in the ACA debate - I fucking hate Obamacare and how it is implemented, but I love it that our country is trying to get everyone affordable healthcare. It's the right idea, just implemented wrong, IMO - and no I don't know the solution but it's better than not taking a step (i.e. doing nothing) towards affordable healthcare.
hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...her-teresa.jpg
So your argument is anything is better than the status quo?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's an odd way of thinking.
No enforcing of such extremes ... just not intervening with taxpayer dollars or other forms of subsidies to help people who suffer from chronic poor-health that is extremely expensive to treat. If private industry wants to subsidize or such individuals can pay for it themselves, by all means do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well shit, he does need a job in two years. And he makes that habit(s) look cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Why does he need a job? He will be making 450k for the rest of his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Would you be of that opinion if your Mother or Father got some debilitating disease which far exceeds your families financial capabilities to pay but is treatable if you have the money? I don't mind paying a little more in taxes or for insurance if it means people in that situation might be helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Shitty things happen to good people, we as a society should be able to assist with that burden.
I doubt that the cost is "a little more" - therein lies the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
This is what insurance is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
But if I and family *choose* to forgo insurance and instead stockpile what otherwise would had been paid premiums/expenses into a savings account, we probably would had been able to pay for it.
However, had we chosen to forgo insurance, and frivolously spent that money on additional luxuries/vacations/etc, then it is time to pay the piper, so to speak.
A lot of people complain about it but I always admired that Mitt Romney had achieved something for healthcare in his state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Bingo, but I think it should be mandatory that you put insurance on your kids, it's cheap and they are always sick and hurting themselves. I could agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
In the meantime, think about it. If all the healthcare $$$ that is otherwise being spent on individuals having to spend a significant majority of their time in hospitals for treatments/procedures/etc, because of chronic ill-health (due to being significantly overweight, lack of exercise, rampant drug usage, or due to questionable physical activities like playing with fireworks), was instead spent on providing more thorough preventative care for the rest of the population ... I dare say that society overall would be experiencing better-quality health-care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
And if you cannot afford insurance? What then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Get a better fucking job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Not everyone has the skills or abilities to do so. Sometimes cashier at McDonalds is your apex position, and frankly there is nothing wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
It isn't just a magic finger snap away for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
There are tons of jobs that require little to no training at start that easily make 15$+ an hour. But if they are so keen to work as a cashier at McDonalds for the rest of their adult life that is their problem. Pretty sure McDonalds also hires from within for positions that pay more and you can "Climb the ladder". So stop trying to mommy everyone.
I happen to think Obamacare is worse than the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So if your only counter argument is "But it isn't the status quo!" well then...I don't know. Hi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
And if they cannot afford health care premium for *basic health care*, then the issue is the health industry being forced to spend too disproportionate amount on expensive treatments ... such as hospitals being mandated to go all-out to save gang-bangers who shot each other up, and as a consequence passing that cost onto everything else, which then subsequently results in preventative care / etc being quantified as "too expensive to afford".Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
... and/or the expectations of entitled-to healthcare is overly excessive (ie anyone gets a lung transplant, even heavy smokers).
So why exactly would you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Those fictional jobs are sure everywhere. Most of the time when they get brought up they end up involving multi state moves that usually aren't practical for people with families.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Private industry would never have anything to do with the cost increases ever of course. They're perfect saints that can't ever do wrong. They love helping people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Proof that you don't read any of my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You are retarded. Two years ago I worked at Walmart making 8 bucks an hour unloading trucks. Then I went to O'Riellys DC and started off at 11.25 left a year later making 13.50. Now I make over 20$ dollars an hour with no college education. I never left the state. Doing a little work ACTUALLY yields results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Yes, that would make an awesome script, you should write that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Not much in what I'd call objective depth other than "I oppose everything!" I'm not sure you're even self aware enough to say the stuff SHM did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'd put you in the intellectually disabled category if you think everyone can do that and the jobs are available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
So if they can't lets give them free food, free housing, free healthcare, free cell phone, and expect them to do any better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The retarded thing about this stuff is you guys break it down into something that's so simple. I mean, give you a minute and you'll solve world hunger. It's as easy as just "Get a job". I know you want to crow about your own personal "no one helped me!" Horatio Alger myth, but WTF. If you think it's that easy, you've already lost. We have 300million people in this country. The answer for each of them is the same? Just "get a job" = problem solved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
No but when you continue to let it be a systemic problem then you aren't doing anything to help it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You have McDonald worker X. Worker X only makes 1200$ a month. We give X food stamps, cash assistance, rental assistance, free healthcare. X feels no need to work towards a better future when they are able to get assistance for taking the easy road. X meets Y and has Z. X and Y teach Z that you get free stuff for doing little to no work. Z grows up knowing this and does what X and Y did.
Now if X went and worked at finding a better job/went up the corp ladder/found a skill set. X then meets Y and has Z. X and Y teaches Z that you can do better than the minimum.
I just solved the welfare crisis!
A script that reads my posts to WB for him? I still don't think he would read my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
I have stated it numerous times throughout this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I think Obamacare is useless because it won't solve the main problem it claimed to want to fix; lowering healthcare costs. There is nothing in the bill about lowering healthcare costs. Nothing about this bill will actually make healthcare costs lower. The only thing it will do is spread those costs around so some people might have lower costs.
It also won't fix the bankruptcy issue that Democrats love to point to as something that Obamacare will fix. How will Obamacare fix the bankruptcy issues? People with healthcare today are filing for bankruptcy and I'm not just talking about 1000 to 2000 dollars in medical debt, they are filing for bankruptcy with 20,000, to 30,000+ dollars in medical debt. WITH HEALTH INSURANCE!
It won't fix the "problem" of people showing up to the emergency room with no insurance and not paying the bill because A) there is no "teeth" in the law to force people to buy insurance and B) even if the person has insurance there is no guarantee they will pay their portion of the bill which could be upwards of 8000 dollars depending on what medical services they required.
Obamacare is a "feel good" piece of legislation. It "feels good" because we're giving everyone insurance but critical thinking to sheeple such as yourself stops there. "Everyone is insured! We saved the world!" But does insuring everyone fix the problems the bill originally sought to fix? The answer is no.
But keep on listening to MSNBC and Moveon.org, surely they don't have an agenda.
ETA: Oh yeah, I forgot the best part of how much of a failure this law is; how easy it is for companies to not have to participate in the law at all. "Hey! We can save ourselves a fortune if we just cut everyone to 28 hours a week and hire a few more workers to make up for the lost man hours!"
Brilliant!
I get most of my news from the BBC. I don't need to read only party affiliated agitprop like you. You of course assume that I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If more people pay for their healthcare it will reduce costs. You would bitch and moan about price fixing if it did that, so your complaint is disengenuous bullshit.
I'm puzzled how people unrelated to the bill are somehow one of your complaints against the bill. Maybe the current system isn't great and the free market won't save us all. Wow.
There are teeth in the law and those teeth are some of the same bullshit that idiotic Republicans complain about. Another stupid illogical line.
We're not "giving everyone insurance." People who think that probably only read chain emails from angry retirees. Do you want that to be you?
There's no real substance to any of this because if a bill came out to do it you'd oppose it.
IF. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I love how you claim my argument is "disengenuous bullshit" based on your "knowledge" of what I would say if something else were to happen. I can't even begin to, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
What are you even talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Really? So what happens if someone doesn't have health insurance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
We're not making sure everyone has health insurance? Gee sure sounds like the law is a bigger failure than I realized. Unless of course you are being disingenuous yourself and you think by "everyone" I literally meant everyone and not every American citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
More people are already paying for their healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If we fixed prices you and every other Republican would qq about it. So your costs line is ridiculous.
When you complain about the current system not stopping bankruptcies OUTSIDE of people effected by the healthcare law it's really stupid to somehow blame that on the healthcare law. You'd complain if we addressed that, too, so it's disengenuous. You don't actually want to help them.
If someone doesn't have insurance you want the law to have teeth in it. Yet the Republican Party decided the sky was falling because this law actually made people pay if they didn't have insurance. They thought this to the point they took it to the Supreme Court. It's two sides of your mouth bullshit.
Now we come to your idea that the law should make everyone have health insurance, but you and the Republicans would have fought even harder about that. It's again pure bullshit.
Is this actually what's happening in our economy? These folks are just making a conscious decision to not work because they can get poverty level income from Uncle Sam? And how do you know? Are you mind reading? Maybe the NSA is capturing this data and reporting on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Let's say that everyone job opening got filled. In November we had 4 million job openings. In December there were 10.4 million unemployed. Even in this perfect world scenario what do we do with the 6.4 million that there is no job for? What about the people who can't work for whatever reason? Are these the ones we let starve? Maybe put them down because they're obviously Takers?
More people are supposedly paying for health insurance, that doesn't mean they are going to pay for their healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
What the heck are you even talking about? You think Republicans don't want to see lower healthcare costs? Like Republicans prefer to piss away money? Even if that were the case you can count this Republican out of that argument. So your argument of knowing my argument is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Again what the hell are you talking about? I'm not blaming Obamacare on why people will still file for bankruptcy, I'm blaming Obamacare for not fixing this problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Again you're making up my position and attacking said position and then arriving to the conclusion (based on this position of mine you have made up) that I don't want to actually help these people. Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I don't care why the law has no teeth now, the point is it doesn't have teeth. Look at all of the exemptions for people to not be required to have health insurance. Look at the penalties, look at how much the IRS' hands are tied when it comes to collecting said penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Damn right I would have fought hard against this because the idea that insurance companies are going to save our healthcare is stupid. Insurance companies serve NO purpose in our nation's healthcare other than to increase the costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Insurance companies need to make a profit, they need to have overhead. Hospitals need to hire entire teams of staff just to fight with insurance companies to get paid. All insurance companies do is add to our healthcare costs and Obamacare's brilliant plan to reduce healthcare costs? Give insurance companies an even greater role in our nation's healthcare.
Yay team Obama!
I can't speak for everyone but this is exactly what my sister and brother-in-law did.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No, that doesn't happen at all in our country. He just made all that up because he's a hatemonger.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2yT_ROmsrg
You or someone counted every single job opening in America? Or is that just an estimate based on 1000 calls?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
As far as the bold parts YES. When I worked at Walmart I would watch people come in and buy 900 dollars worth of groceries on an EBT card. Consisting of chips, pop, crab legs, some very expensive and unhealthy choices. Then they walked outside, put their groceries in the back of a brand new Escalade on big ol' rims. Why would someone bother to do any better when they can save massive amounts of money by being poor and just setting that money aside for whatever while they can just spend the state dollars?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
For the people that can't work, that's what family is for. Worked that way for thousands of years but now it can't? If you are too lazy to be able to provide for yourself you died or just lived in shitty conditions. Nature has it right. If you don't work to live you should die.
Year 1514 = You didn't work, you starved to death or lived on the streets.
Year 2014 = You don't work, you eat crab legs and get free rent.
I counted them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
You do realize that the reason there is a "welfare baby" meme, is because there ARE welfare babies, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
lol. That actually made me laugh. You answered a question. Of course you were being an ass, to my assiness, but still.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I wonder what people will be eating in 2514 if they don't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Republicans don't want lower healthcare costs. The traditional conservative magic realism theory is that the profit motive will improve things for people. The reality is lobbyists just line the pockets of conservatives and then you're fed a lot of philosophy to back it up at institutions funded by the same people who will make money off the costs not falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Any actual method of reducing those costs would be opposed by Republicans, so you using this to complain about the ACA is ridiculous.
You suggest that ACA should stop bankruptcies yet any thought of helping people avoid bankruptcy is anathema to the party of not helping people.
You want the law to have teeth but your party took it to the Supreme Court to try to stop it from having teeth.
You don't like insurance companies. Me either. How quickly would the Republicans wail about communism and socialism if Obama nationalized insurance?
All these criticisms are ridiculous because your party is the enemy to all of them. Yet you use it to endlessly wail about Obama and the plan which you anthropomorphize because you're obsessed with him.
The sad practice of buying votes at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Are you contending that welfare wages allow one to live on crab legs and drive escalades? I'm not doubting that you've seen this, but I'm skeptical that it's the norm or even possible. You can't save massive amounts of money because you're getting food stamps. You could if you had another source of income then scammed SNAP for 300 bucks a month that you invest wisely. Is that what those food stamp people are doing? Aren't most of the recipients children, elderly and disabled? If this is the case it sounds like our nation is missing out on a tremendous asset. We should get these food stamp people jobs at the treasury or the fed and let them put those big brains to work for good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Now you want to talk about unhealthy food choices. Should we pass a law saying that if your EBT cards can only be used for fresh food, beans, rice, or whatever we currently think = healthy food? Who's going to enforce that? Bigger government? What will frito-lay say. How about Pizza Hut when the gov't tells the country that these are not healthy foods?
I appreciate that you phrased it this way. The thing is, we just don't know what the actual circumstances for each of these people are. It's easy to spot the outliers but how do we determine who is a professional thief from those who are really in need?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quoted for proof that WB just invents nonsense to support his warped perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I understand Republican policy positions. I'm such a "nonsense inventor".Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Really? Honestly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You're not even making sense. Even if I were to buy into your argument that Republicans actually want high healthcare costs what does that have to do with my complaint about Obamacare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Same question as above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Same question as above above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Again I don't care why Obamacare is a failure now, simple fact of the matter is it's a failure. You're looking at pointing fingers at Republicans for opposing it, guess what? They opposed it anyways! So now we're left with a watered down, useless piece of legislation that not a single Republican in Congress voted for and your only argument is it's not better than it could have been because Republicans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's your argument? I can't criticize Obamacare because Congressional Republicans would have opposed all of the things I wanted to see in the law...even though Congressional Republicans opposed everything already in the law...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's almost like you're trying to think of the stupidest argument possible so I can't possibly have anyway to refute it because it's just so stupid.
Hopefully other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Is it proof? What did WB say that's incorrect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Conservative values do speak to getting gov't out of the way, and the free market will sort it out.
The right came up with the individual mandate and ACA some years ago. Now these ideas have been co-opted by the Dems. What's the GOP plan today to reduce health care costs?
The last President made filing BK much harder for an American to file bankruptcy in a law that was pushed for by banks and credit card companies who'd apparently made bad loans.
The GOP did their best to defang ACA, after they tried to repeal it or ignore it.
We're already hearing a lot of talk about Obama being a socialist. Let him nationalize health care and we'll have a revolution.