More Obamacare fuckups

[Jarvan]

Considering that I didn't say that, it would be pretty ridiculous of me to try and tell you that. What the article said was that welfare reduces the number of poor people, and if you look at the lower graph here...

...it seems they've got it pretty correct. It remains to be seen whether the increase since ~99 is random noise or due to inept reforms enacted around that time, but the fact is that we have had welfare as commonly understood since the '60s and have seen no evidence of dependency, and we have had similar socialist-leaning programs since the '30s when poverty rates were 3 times what they are today.

That's the goal - less poverty. Counting the people "on welfare" is pointless because welfare changes decade by decade, it's an equivocation.

Poverty rate /= welfare.

In almost all states you are legally required to have car insurance. It is not a choice, and if you are caught without it you are liable to be punished regardless of whether you have been in an accident or made a claim.
Most of us won't have catastrophically bad car accidents either, but the law is still the law - and it's a correct one. .

Half right. You are required to have care insurance if you choose to drive, and own a car. if you choose to not drive and not own a car, you are not still required by law to pay for car insurance.

This bill makes it so you have no choice other then leave the country.... or kill yourself I guess. Hmm.. maybe the ACA is advocating suicide.

Insurance A is required because a person might be hurt unpredictably because they choose to do item x.
Insurance B is required because a person might be hurt unpredictably just for living.

I wouldn't say equal, but I would say comparable.

Fixed that for you.

[Wrathbringer]

In almost all states you are legally required to have car insurance. It is not a choice, and if you are caught without it you are liable to be punished regardless of whether you have been in an accident or made a claim.Most of us won't have catastrophically bad car accidents either, but the law is still the law - and it's a correct one. Your thought process is what is described as smart for one, dumb for all. Most people do not have to be subject to unprepared catastrophe for it to be a net loss to the group, because "catastrophe" does not mean infinitesimally worse than average. This is one of the many reasons why we need a government, to force us into certain decisions that are dumb for one, smart for all.I didn't say "consider this article", I said consider the report detailed therein. With that being said, if you're just going to rely on character attacks of the authors there's not much difference.If you can't see how 15% is lower than 22%, I can't help you.

I will agree that government is force. Force is unethical. I disagree that their poorly written and randomly enforced laws can lead to anything other than oppression, let alone the utopia your ILK envision. Until Obummer assigns a specific fascist to each of us to ensure we do what they say, there will always be people like me who say, "not interested" and do as we believe best regardless of what the rest of the sheeple do (that's called "freedom" - google it). If your ILK believe in this mess we call government, then by all means, give the government 100% of your assets in support of their agenda. It's okay, their programs will help you once you're poor, right? Go sponsor a bunch of people for Obamacare plans. Go police a McDonalds to be sure no one consumes more than 16 oz. of sugar water. Meanwhile, I'll be over here minding my own business wondering why you can't be content to mind yours.

[Latrinsorm]

Poverty rate /= welfare.

Why do people keep pointing out that all the things I didn't say are wrong? I know they're wrong, that's why I didn't say them.

Half right. You are required to have care insurance if you choose to drive, and own a car. if you choose to not drive and not own a car, you are not still required by law to pay for car insurance.

This bill makes it so you have no choice other then leave the country.... or kill yourself I guess. Hmm.. maybe the ACA is advocating suicide.

Fixed that for you.

Hey, I'm all for letting people off of the requirement if they can prove that they will never have a car accident or never have ill health. In the real world, we have to accept that everything we do has consequences, even those things we don't control. Where I'm from this kind of personal responsibility goes without saying, but apparently other people have done goofed, and when that happens it's up to the government to make things right.

I will agree that government is force. Force is unethical.

An option being unethical is not the same as an option necessarily being the wrong choice. We live in a flagrantly unethical universe.

If your ILK believe in this mess we call government, then by all means, give the government 100% of your assets in support of their agenda.

But if I believe in this government, why would I give them any different than what they have decreed is necessary and proper for me to give?

Meanwhile, I'll be over here minding my own business wondering why you can't be content to mind yours.

The common welfare is my business. And yours. And even Methais'.

[cwolff]

We got another Obamacare fuckup to report. This one from the President's State of the Union address. Remember that WA rep. who gave the GOP rebuttal. The english one, not the tea party one, or the other tea party one. Turns out she fucked up.

The centerpiece of the Republican party's attack on the Affordable Care Act following President Obama's State of the Union address this week was the story of "Bette."
Bette was an otherwise unidentified Washington state resident featured in the official GOP response to the Obama speech delivered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.). According to Rodgers, Bette had written her a letter stating that she had "hoped the president’s healthcare law would save her money – but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month." The lesson, according to Rodgers: "This law is not working."

But that sounds like her insurer trying to steer her to an overpriced option. A compliant plan meeting the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandates actually is available from Washington's insurance exchange for much less -- and with a deductible far lower than the $10,000 she was paying under the old plan and broader coverage, though lacking a provision for four free doctor visits a year provided by her old plan.
Grenier said she had flatly refused to even investigate her options on the exchange. "I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” she said. “We liked our old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.”

Instead, she and her husband "have decided to go without coverage," the newspaper reported.

[Tgo01]

I like how someone who isn't her knows how much her plans should be.

Reminds me of WB calling me a liar when I said the cheapest plan available to me was 200 dollars.

I also want to know what I'm doing wrong because Bette's "friend' supposedly got a plan for 120 bucks a month, my uncle insists there are plans for 30 bucks a month on the Obamacare website if you "know where to look."

So what the heck am I doing wrong that the best I can get is 200 dollars a month? Latrin? Help me out here.

[cwolff]

I like how someone who isn't her knows how much her plans should be.

Reminds me of WB calling me a liar when I said the cheapest plan available to me was 200 dollars.

I also want to know what I'm doing wrong because Bette's "friend' supposedly got a plan for 120 bucks a month, my uncle insists there are plans for 30 bucks a month on the Obamacare website if you "know where to look."

So what the heck am I doing wrong that the best I can get is 200 dollars a month? Latrin? Help me out here.

Do you think the state insurance regulator would know how much her plan should be? He was stumped by the story too.

Here's another link. This one to the local paper that the LA Times is using as their source. I'll sum it up for you. The lady had catastrophic coverage which is no longer compliant. Her insurance provider mailed her a letter telling her that the plan is discontinued, but she can buy a much more expensive plan from them if she wishes. That basically ended the womans relationship with medical insurance. She didn't want to take the plan her carrier was upselling to her and she refuses to go on the website to shop.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...odgers-speech/

[Tgo01]

Do you think the state insurance regulator would know how much her plan should be? He was stumped by the story too.

I guess that would depend on how much he knows about her and her situation.

Here's another link.

What do you mean "another" link? You never provided me a link to begin with and I had to Google something all on my own

I read her story though, she's pretty stupid for not at least shopping around but that doesn't negate the fact that she claimed she was happy with her insurance and she wasn't able to keep it and her insurance company quoted her a much higher price.

This reads like some sort of "Gotcha!" moment yet no one has refuted anything the woman said, just that her insurance company was trying to gouge her.

[Jarvan]

Do you think the state insurance regulator would know how much her plan should be? He was stumped by the story too.

Here's another link. This one to the local paper that the LA Times is using as their source. I'll sum it up for you. The lady had catastrophic coverage which is no longer compliant. Her insurance provider mailed her a letter telling her that the plan is discontinued, but she can buy a much more expensive plan from them if she wishes. That basically ended the womans relationship with medical insurance. She didn't want to take the plan her carrier was upselling to her and she refuses to go on the website to shop.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...odgers-speech/

Actually, no I do not think he would. How is someone who would not know the specifics of her plan, or her financials, know exactly how much her plan should be? Which plan? Does he pick which plan she gets?

[cwolff]

Actually, no I do not think he would. How is someone who would not know the specifics of her plan, or her financials, know exactly how much her plan should be? Which plan? Does he pick which plan she gets?

Maybe this will help:

Unsurprisingly, her story is much different from the sketchy description provided by Rodgers. That description perplexed experts, including Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who couldn't understand how a state resident "would have no choice but to pay $700 per month more for a policy that meets the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements," the newspaper reported.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...#ixzz2s1d0Pow6

[Tgo01]

I like your link though cwolff, it sure does paint a different picture than your original post:

In Olympia, state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler didn’t dismiss the possibility but was skeptical that someone would have no choice but to pay $700 per month more for a policy that meets the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements.

So, wait, it's possible her premiums could be that high but he's "skeptical"? Well shit! I'm sure as fuck convinced she's lying now!

As I said the cheapest option available to me was 200 dollars a month (okay it was like 188...shut up!) by law (Obamacare law) insurance companies can charge elderly folks up to three times the amount for a premium as they charge younger folks. And her 1200 dollar a month quote was for both her and her husband.

Also I don't smoke and by law insurance companies can charge smokers more, what if both she and her husband smoke?

Now wait...let me see...200 x 3 x 2...carry the one...