More Obamacare fuckups

[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.

Read this again. Not everyone's saying that this directly affects premiums.

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?

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?

[Whirlin]

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?

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.

[Latrinsorm]

I have never seen an obamacare plan that doesn't have a copay. So I am really not sure what they are smoking.

This is an interesting response.

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?

Why is it my responsibility to make sure that Jane gets free birth control?

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.

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?

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.

[Jarvan]

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.

You do know a woman can carry a condom, right? As for incentive, not dying of aids is always an incentive.

[tyrant-201]

You do know a woman can carry a condom, right? As for incentive, not dying of aids is always an incentive.

I second this. I know Whirlin's mom always has one on her.

[Atlanteax]

This has to be farking huge:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/30/news...html?iid=HP_LN

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.

DUH!!! a significant portion of the uninsured are so because they *DO NOT WANT TO PAY WITH THEIR OWN $$$* (they rather get healthcare on others' $$$)

[cwolff]

This has to be farking huge:
DUH!!! a significant portion of the uninsured are so because they *DO NOT WANT TO PAY WITH THEIR OWN $$$* (they rather get healthcare on others' $$$)

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.

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.

[Atlanteax]

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...

[cwolff]

Kinda like getting your AARP card before you are even 30...

No kidding. AARP at least is just a private $ making machine.

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?

[Methais]

No kidding. AARP at least is just a private $ making machine.

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.