# When did Junk Plans become Junk Plans



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".

*Period.*

Then our Affirmative Action Non-Hero gets has skinny ass caught in a wringer and all of sudden, these became junk plans.

I am sure there might have been a few statements about this prior to the BIG LIE being exposed, but I don't recall hearing it at all.

If the left can't produce 1000 clips of this, then they have to admit that this is nothing more than a scorched earth effort to divert from the fact that our incompetent president is also an incompetent liar.

ALL OF A SUDDEN THE LEFT BECOMES CONCERNED about our junk plans.

And Ed Shultz has the moxy and the dead brain cells to push this pile of horseshyt.

If you are from the left, don't bother posting about what the plans did and did not cover, that is just more smoke.  It really does not matter if you think they are junk or not. 

You were pretty quiet on the whole topic prior to the BIG LIE.  That is what this is about.  Negs to anyone who compares plans.

And maybe I am wrong about this.  But I just don't recall seeing it.

All I heard was the may plan (good or bad) and doctor were safe from any issues because of Obamacare.

Let's see it.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 8, 2013)

It's a form of fraud called bait and switch...he said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." No qualifications were mentioned, and they were very aware that they were intentionally misleading the public.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 8, 2013)

This is how they demonized the various plans.  Plans are tailored for families and individuals.  There aren't "bad, shitty, crappy, junk" plans.  There are different levels of coverage which until now everyone had the option of buying/not buying insurance.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

Sherry said:


> It's a form of fraud called bait and switch...he said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." No qualifications were mentioned, and they were very aware that they were intentionally misleading the public.



I agree.

But, this is a chance for them to show me what I missed.

Where were they talking junk plans prior to the BIG LIE being exposed ?


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 8, 2013)

A "junk plan" in Lefty-speak is one that we freely chose and like, which doesn't include extra coverage we don't want OR need, and without high enough premiums, deductibles and copays to cover subsidies for the Obama voter base to get free HC insurance.


----------



## PixieStix (Dec 8, 2013)

*When did Junk Plans become Junk Plans?*

When Obama said they were. Duh


----------



## John W Slacker (Dec 8, 2013)

Sherry said:


> It's a form of fraud called bait and switch...he said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." No qualifications were mentioned, and they were very aware that they were intentionally misleading the public.



Uh Huh.....er...uh....eh....ah....misleading...yeah thats it misleading??????


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 8, 2013)

.

Junk = That which is not blessed by our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning, because we trust them always to know what is best for us.

.


----------



## Antares (Dec 8, 2013)

JOHNWSLACKER said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > It's a form of fraud called bait and switch...he said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." No qualifications were mentioned, and they were very aware that they were intentionally misleading the public.
> ...



Why....ahm youah huckleberry.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 8, 2013)

Obama got what he wanted from the lie.  He won a second term.  That why most of the negatives of ACA were postponed until after the election.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 8, 2013)

> You were pretty quiet on the whole topic prior to the BIG LIE.



To me this is key point. 

If they knew but didn't talk about it, then they all lied.

If they didn't know and they fell in trap just as we did, then how they can defend those who set the trap.

What can I say... that IS how left works.


----------



## Sherry (Dec 8, 2013)

Ame®icano;8266364 said:
			
		

> > You were pretty quiet on the whole topic prior to the BIG LIE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They forgive them because they believe sometimes you have to manipulate the masses for the greater good...the ends justify the means.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Dec 8, 2013)

> When did Junk Plans become Junk Plans



When Obama proclaimed they were, despite what the owners of those plans thought about them.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

I have not seen the left posting any clips of Pelosi talking about Junk Plans yet.

I wonder what is happening ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

Still nothing.

Because there is no explanation.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

No far left Obama drone has flown in to drop their DUD yet?


----------



## Rozman (Dec 8, 2013)

If a company in the private sector pulled this bullshit they would have been brought up 
on charges of fraud.Plain and simple.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 8, 2013)

You people need to get a grip.

Your plan is junk if Obama says it's junk.  And if he likes your plan, you can keep your plan...for a fee.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 8, 2013)

Rozman said:


> If a company in the private sector pulled this bullshit they would have been brought up
> on charges of fraud.Plain and simple.



*Absolutely! Many of these lying a-holes would already be in prison if an ongoing fraud and conspiracy of this magnitude occurred in the private sector. First one in the slammer would be Obama! Has to be THE biggest conspiracy to commit fraud in America history*


----------



## Vox (Dec 8, 2013)

boedicca said:


> You people need to get a grip.
> 
> Your plan is junk if Obama says it's junk.  And if he likes your plan, you can keep your plan...for a fee.



robbery chicago style


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...



You can add my neg to anyone who tries to justify this by saying the plans didn't cover maternity care for men who are over 50.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 8, 2013)

Rozman said:


> If a company in the private sector pulled this bullshit they would have been brought up
> on charges of fraud.Plain and simple.




I really like how the federal ObamaCare site is exempt from informing users of security breaches.  The state run ones are required to do such notification - but not the feds.  This makes it pretty much the perfect ClusterFraudFuck.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

Vox said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You people need to get a grip.
> ...



I'll rep you when I can (just did recently)...but that is a great line.


----------



## alan1 (Dec 8, 2013)

I miss the good old days when I could choose when or when not to engage in commerce.


----------



## Clementine (Dec 8, 2013)

They didn't become junk plans until the lies were exposed about being allowed to actually choose for yourself.    Now that this administration is forcing us to part with our own choices, they have to say we had bad plans to justify the law making us lose them.    Now they say we'll be better off, unless of course you can't afford to pay two or three times more for a plan.   In that case, you'll be in good company when you no longer have any plan at all.    So, nothing is better than a junk plan, according to the left.    And don't expect sympathy for having your insurance taken from you and not being able to afford a new plan.   It's just a little ole' unintended consequence.    It's only a crisis if they are trying to pass radical legislation.    So, pay through the nose to get what they say you may have or just pay the fine and shut up.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

Is the far left afraid of this thread as well?

Does this not fit into their programmed talking points?

Do the far left blog sites talk about this?


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Is the far left afraid of this thread as well?
> 
> Does this not fit into their programmed talking points?
> 
> Do the far left blog sites talk about this?



Haven't seen one.

After all, this is what he really "meant" according to dumbass Pelosi.

You'd think we'd see something.

I am not even saying it isn't out there.  

The left should be just as pissed at this as the right.  They were lied to and now they are being expected, like Jay Blarney, to carry bullshyt instead of water.  

Like I said, maybe they exist.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 8, 2013)

They became junk plans when the lie if you like your plan you can keep it period was exposed. The Obama motto on healthcare seems to be I will decide what's best for you no matter if you like it or not.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 8, 2013)

They became junk when insurers began cancelling them in droves and the Administration needed a talking point to persuade people Obamacare was actually doing them a favor.
Perhaps a few really stupid ones fell for it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Dec 8, 2013)

They became junk when Obama had enough of people making their own choices about their healthcare. Funny, I recall abortionists saying the government should stay out of their uterus, but don't mind the government controlling what healthcare they choose. 

Hello? How can you be pro-choice when you willingly concede freedom to make your choices to the government?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...



I want to know when any plan became anything better than a junk plan.  All insurance is junk.  You pay the insurance company, they pay the doctor.  They're not paying the doctor out of the kindness of their heart.  They're in it for profit.  That means that, in the long run, you're always paying more than they're paying the doctor.  Get rid of Obamacare, and just ban insurance.  That way the market can deal with costs the way that markets are meant to deal with them.  If the services are too expensive for people to afford, the providers will have to adjust their prices on their own accord if they want to stay in business.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 8, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...




"Insurance" is paying a *reasonable* amount each month to insure against HUGE costs in the case of a serious car accident, or serious illness. The routine maintenance, on your car or yourself, is out of pocket.

The ACA fundamentally changed this and includes all kinds of "free" stuff, the cost of which is being spread around with *unreasonable* rates for anyone who pays.

It's socialism, PERIOD


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 8, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



I have some adevice for you, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 8, 2013)

One man's junk is another man's treasure.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Dec 8, 2013)

When every day brings more news about how the finest medical facilities are being removed or are not entering obamacare how can the bit about better health care hold water. Once agaIn republican should be beating the drums about this, but the pr Machine is brain dead.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

Where is the left ?


----------



## Sherry (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> Where is the left ?



Hoping that people will stop bumping this thread.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 8, 2013)

Whenever I see Obama on TV I can't get the theme song of Sanford and Son out of my head.


----------



## Clementine (Dec 8, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> They became junk when insurers began cancelling them in droves and the Administration needed a talking point to persuade people Obamacare was actually doing them a favor.
> Perhaps a few really stupid ones fell for it.



The ones that are subsidized could care less if others lost their insurance.   

I think the ones they consider crap plans are the ones that most doctors would actually accept.   Few doctors are willing to accept Obamacare patients because they will only be paid a fraction of what it actually costs to care for the patients.     

'Crap plans' paid a big chunk of our medical bills and it was affordable.    Obamacare will offer a small payment for medical bills, tell the doctors to eat the rest and it is not affordable to the majority.    Less for more money, that's the liberal way.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans". It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...


Insurance companies have been offering "junk plans" for years.  They are nothing new, however the the phrase is used in the trade and so it is unknown in the general population.  Junk plans offer little and are basically a scam by the insurance companies.  They are great plans if you are not sick or in a serious accident.  If you sign up for a junk plan you pay a low premiem but if you have a serious problem you are SHIT OUT OF LUCK.
If you want some insight into junk plans (which I seriously doubt) rent the video "The Rainmaker" with Matt Damon.  The story deals with a lawyer who goes after an insurance company that sells junk policies.
The truth of the matter is I do not think you are here to learn anything.  You are here to throw mud!


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 8, 2013)

Clementine said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > They became junk when insurers began cancelling them in droves and the Administration needed a talking point to persuade people Obamacare was actually doing them a favor.
> ...


Obviously you have no clue what you are speaking about.  When people go to a doctor's office they are asked to provide identification and their insurance cards.  If the person presents a card that only provides junk insurance the doctor's often turn down providing service.  I have seen it happen and I have talked to my doctor about junk insurance.  They know that the insurance company will not pay the claim and the person requesting service cannot pay for the service.  In other words, they know that they will not be paid for their services so they refuse to provide them to avoid the hassle.  
Get back to us when you know what a junk policy is.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 8, 2013)

If these were junk or sub standard plans simple question why didn't Obama and the Democrats tell the public over and over and over they would be losing their junk/substandard plan and getting a better one in return instead of if you like your plan you can keep it period?


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 8, 2013)

BobPlumb said:


> Whenever I see Obama on TV I can't get the theme song of Sanford and Son out of my head.


Whenever I see posts like yours I can't get the thought of Archie Bunker out of my head.  What an interesting coincidence.  Ya think.......


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans". It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



Hello Ronnie,

Did you read the OP.  Even though you quoted it, I suspect you didn't really take the time to understand the point.

I understand what you want us to believe.  

I paid for a couple of those plans for kids and they were adequately covered for what I wanted to cover them.  I did a risk analysis and came up with a scenario I felt good with.  Now, I am forced with potentially paying more for coverage I don't want.

You don't get to decide for me.  I'll not put anything on you.  I can (along with my insurance) cover all potential issues.  

But the real issue is that Junk Plans were never spoken of by Obama and team.  All you heard was "you can keep it. PERIOD".  Recall that ?  Not what he meant...what he said.  That is what he said.

No talk of junk plans before.  Unless I missed them.  If you can produce them, I'll be happy to recant...but it better be a lot of clips.

And so you missed the point.

And you've been negged for using this argument.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever I see Obama on TV I can't get the theme song of Sanford and Son out of my head.
> ...



Produce the clips or go post in the freeway Ronnie.

You are a hack.

Go tell your insurance commissioner (you know, the government) to get rid of junk plans.

But this thread is about our Affirmative Action Moron Liar In Chief.  Get over it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



We know what it is.  It's what Obama never mentioned until he got his ass caught in the BIG LIE.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 8, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> If these were junk or sub standard plans simple question why didn't Obama and the Democrats tell the public over and over and over they would be losing their junk/substandard plan and getting a better one in return instead of if you like your plan you can keep it period?


Probably because they had no idea that so many people had purchased junk plans in the first place.  I have seen people at my doctor's office who have been turned away because the office staff knew that the plan they had would not cover the cost of services.


----------



## Clementine (Dec 8, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



I get your point and I believe the private sector and free market system runs better without government calling the shots.    

Health insurance, like auto insurance, was intended to help people in the event of a catastrophic accident or illness.    It was government tying it to people's jobs and interfering with what companies had to provide that messed things up.   Government wouldn't allow them to compete across state lines and the lack of competition and government control increased prices.     Health care suppliers and big pharms also learned to take advantage of insurers by raising their prices.    The insurance companies, along with government regulations kept a fountain of money flowing and everyone was ready to grab what they could.   Medicare fraud was a huge problem for the last 20 years.   

My brother had a lengthy hospital stay due to a serious illness.   The final bill was well over 1 million.   The amount he was responsible for was around $10,000.    Not bad.   Without insurance, he would never have been able to pay.   The money insurance paid for his hospital stay was waaaay more than he ever paid in.

When government insists that insurance pay for every doctor visit and every pill we take, the costs go up.   It would be insane to expect auto insurance to pay for oil changes and other minor things.   If the government forced auto insurance companies to follow the same rules they set for health insurers, no one would be able to afford it.

Insurance was a brilliant idea.   You make small payments, they invest it along with other payments and make money.   Then they are prepared to make a large payout in the event of a serious illness or injury.     The amount people paid in would be a small fraction of what the insurance company would pay out.    

Leave it to government to get involved and decide that employers must provide it and that insurance must cover damn near everything.    Between increased obligations for the insurance companies and no competition, it is any wonder that costs went up?

Yes, they want to make money.   It would be downright stupid to start a business that was designed to lose money.     It was government run insurance, like Medicare, that caused hikes in medical care and insurance costs because they only paid a small fraction of the bill, leaving other insurance companies to pick up the slack.    Hospitals and doctors do need to stay in business, so the cost gets passed on.    

Government has a tendency to take a good thing and turn it into a disaster by making volumes of regulations in an effort to micromanage the country.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever I see Obama on TV I can't get the theme song of Sanford and Son out of my head.
> ...



All in the family was a pretty damn good TV show.   Coming from a Meat Head, I will take that as a compliment.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


If you know what a junk plan is then you know that the plan is pretty much not worth the paper it is printed on.  Junk plans are a scam and are NOT intended to provide insurance.  They are intended to make money for the insurance company by selling a worthless plan to gullible idiots.   The truth of the matter is that it is probably better NOT to have a junk insurance plan.  A junk plan gives people a false sense of security.  They think they are covered for serious problems but the truth of the matter is that they are not.  For example, a junk plan may offer $600 per day for hospital care for a week.  It sounds wonderful but the problem is the average cost for one night in the hospital is around $1800 per day.  That means that every day they spend in the hospital they will have to pay $1200 out of their pocket.  At the end of the week it becomes $1800 out of pocket.  It does not take long to build up a huge debt with those types of charges.  
The main reason for filing for personal bankrupcy in this country is for medical reasons.  That number is around 2,000,000 a year.  It would be my guess many of those had the junk policies you are defending.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > If these were junk or sub standard plans simple question why didn't Obama and the Democrats tell the public over and over and over they would be losing their junk/substandard plan and getting a better one in return instead of if you like your plan you can keep it period?
> ...



Uh huh you going to stick with that story or try and come with a better one? My theory is if they told millions of Americans that the government had decided the plans these people had researched bought and liked were garbage and they were going to cancel them in order to force them into the plans the government thought they needed there is a better than average chance Obamacare would never have been passed. I can't say this is the reason for certain it does however seem more probable than they didn't know how many so called junk plans had been purchased in the first place.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Hello dumbass...nobody is defending the kind of plan you described.  Not all the plans they called junk were bad.  I had two of them so STFU.

Even then, Huge debt.  What a load.  

The point is that somehow our Affirmative Action Moron didn't bother to mention this issue. 

What he said was.....you can keep your insurance. period.

Are you claiming he knew he was lying when he said it ?

Or was he really that incompetent ?

And guess away.  The average level of bankruptcy was below the cost of a mid-sized sedan and was rarely all related to health care costs.  People will bail on anything these days (how do you like that one).


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 8, 2013)

BobPlumb said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...


I was sure you would be proud to be compared to Archie Bunker.  After all, Archie was a racist idiot with low IQ.  You seem to fit that pattern perfectly.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > If these were junk or sub standard plans simple question why didn't Obama and the Democrats tell the public over and over and over they would be losing their junk/substandard plan and getting a better one in return instead of if you like your plan you can keep it period?
> ...



Spoken like a true far left elitist.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Do you have any clips to back up all your ass-talk ?  Or are you going to waste our time with your sorry liberal yacking ?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 8, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Seeing that the far left elites (like you) are more racist than Archie Bunker and have lower IQ's than an ameba, not sure how you can cast any stones.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 8, 2013)

My last post for the evening Obama never said if you like your plan you can keep unless it's a junk plan he never said you can keep any plan except a junk plan he said if you like your current plan and doctor you can keep them period. The term junk, garbage, and sub standard plan did not come into play until millions of people got cancellation notices and everybody started asking Obama about the thirty something times he said if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them period. Something else that has been forgotten here was it not HHS and Kathleen Sebelius who rewrote the rules that made it all but impossible for the people to keep those plans?


----------



## Londoner (Dec 8, 2013)

Junk plans were made possible by a health care industry which invested trillions of dollars into the elections of our politicians. They did this in order to create a state protected monopoly. 

This meant that a handful of companies could divide the country into fixed no-compete zones which allowed them to raise rates and decrease services without fear of losing customers. 

It also meant they could offer plans with terrible coverage and deductibles people couldn't pay . . . because there were no alternatives being offered by other market competitors (who didn't exist because the existing players divided the country up into fixed markets where many people only had one option).

This was the opposite of what was promised in 1980 when we began deregulating everything. We were told that if we got government out of health care and allowed corporations to make higher profits, than we would see competitive pricing and expanded covered. But we saw the exact opposite. We saw a profusion of junk plans along with an increasing number of good plans that became too expensive for average workers. We saw the kind of price inflation that only occurs with government protected monopolies. 

ObamaCare created regulations that targeted junk plans with the hope of replacing them with good plans. The idea was that if enough people joined the state and federal exchanges, the sheer volume would bring the cost curve down so that the corporations could offer better plans at more competitive premiums. Problem is: one of our two political parties is heavily invested in the failure of the exchanges. To the degree that the Republicans can obstruct the exchanges, they can prevent the volume needed by health insurance companies to bring down premiums and offer good policies to those who lost junk policies.

My guess is that the demand for health care is so large, that ObamaCare will slowly spread to the point where it will be hard to take it away. This means that more and more people will be able to trade their junk policy for something much better. However, Republicans are trying awfully hard to prevent this. Their goal is to make sure that the system cannot offer better alternatives to those who lose junk policies. If they succeed, they have a chance at killing ObamaCare and restoring the health care monopoly that funds their elections.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

Londoner said:


> Junk plans were made possible by a health care industry which invested trillions of dollars into the elections of our politicians. They did this in order to create a state protected monopoly.
> 
> This meant that a handful of companies could divide the country into fixed no-compete zones which allowed them to raise rates and decrease services without fear of losing customers.
> 
> ...



Spoken using the far left platitude talking points.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans". It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



FYI, The Rainmaker is about a lawyer who who sues an insurance company for not paying an insurance claim. It is a straight up case of insurance fraud, and has less to do with junk plans than the many plans that Obama currently hates for exposing his lies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I am sorry, I couldn't get past the second sentence of this farcical post.


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Dec 9, 2013)

Londoner said:


> Junk plans were made possible by a health care industry which invested trillions of dollars into the elections of our politicians. They did this in order to create a state protected monopoly.
> 
> This meant that a handful of companies could divide the country into fixed no-compete zones which allowed them to raise rates and decrease services without fear of losing customers.
> 
> ...



The ACA really didn't change this. In fact, in some areas it made it worse. The deductibles for plans in the exchange are outrageous; there's no way a middle class family will be able to afford reaching the deductible. Add on to that the fact that some of the "extra coverage"  you get from the ACA are in areas a lot of people don't want or need. I do not need maternity coverage, or psychological coverage, or substance abuse coverage. But I'm now forced to pay for those things that I will never use. If I buy a car without built in GPS or bluetooth, I didn't just buy a junk car. It was a car that has only what I need, and I was able to pay less for it. 

The only upside to the ACA cost wise, is that people who are poor will pay less for the plan. They'll pay more for nearly everything else related to their health care, but not their premiums.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 9, 2013)

Clementine said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...





ron4342 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Of course those that make fun of Obama must be racist with low IQ.  How dare I or anyone do such a thing to your messiah?  That's right out of the left wing play book.  You play the race card because you have nothing to defend Obama's lies.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

Obviously the far left is proud of the fact that people now pay more for less.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



His proof comes from a Hollywood movie.  What does that say about the veracity of the rest of his post?
How many policies sold were actually scams? Yeah, not a lot.  Because if they were that bad people would cancel them.
It is the leftist world view that unless gov't is there to "help" people are just too damn stupid to figure it out for themselves.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...



You don't?  

Because the "underinsured" has been part of this discussion all along. 

How Many Are Underinsured? Trends Among U.S. Adults, 2003 and 2007 - The Commonwealth Fund



> The number of underinsured U.S. adultsthat is, people who have health coverage that does not adequately protect them from high medical expenseshas risen dramatically, a Commonwealth Fund study finds. As of 2007, there were an estimated 25 million underinsured adults in the United States, up 60 percent from 2003.
> 
> Much of this growth comes from the ranks of the middle class. While low-income people remain vulnerable, middle-income families have been hit hardest. For adults with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $40,000 per year for a family), the underinsured rates nearly tripled since 2003.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 9, 2013)

bobplum posted:
All in the family was a pretty damn good TV show. Coming from a Meat Head, I will take that as a compliment.

 Ron sez:
I was sure you would be proud to be compared to Archie Bunker. After all, Archie was a racist idiot with low IQ. You seem to fit that pattern perfectly.

 bobplum posted:
 Of course those that make fun of Obama must be racist with low IQ. How dare I or anyone do such a thing to your messiah? That's right out of the left wing play book. You play the race card because you have nothing to defend Obama's lies.[/QUOTE]

Ron sez:

Excuse me but my Messiah is Jesus Christ, NOT President Obama.  That said shit for brains, you stated you took it as a "compliment" to be compared to Archie Bunker. I merely pointed out that Archie was a racist idiot with a low IQ who was pretty much a baffoon in the series "All In The Family." I further pointed out that I was not surprised you took pride in comparing yourself to Archie. And as for playing the race care, it was played in your initial post when you stated you cannot see President Obama with out thinking of the music from "The Jeffersons." That was playing the race card and I just followed up on what you posted. If you are not happy with being called a racist, I COULD GIVE A SHIT. You are what you are.
Oh, and one other thing, I have not mentioned or defended President Obama. I just pointed that your comment was both idiotic and racists. GFY


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 9, 2013)

Kosh said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...





BobPlumb said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



You left out my original post making fun of Obama.  So you were not defending Obama?  

Junk plans.......Fred Sanford ran a junk yard in case you don't understand the reference.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 9, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


First of all, my proof is not based on a Hollywood movie.  However, the movie gives an excellent example of how the junk insurance plans cheat Americans.  As you are apparently not smart enough to read or understand what is going on I thought a visual aid may be a help to you.
And as for people cancelling their plans when the find out they are trash, THEY DO NOT FIND OUT THEY ARE TRASH UNTIL THEY FILE A CLAIM.  Then when they do file a claim and find out their plan WILL NOT help them it is to late to do anything about it.  The primary reason given for filing for personnal bankrupcy in this country is the inability to pay medical expenses.  Almost 2,000,000 people file for bankrupcy due to medical costs in this country each year.  Most of them probably have junk plans that have declined their claims.
Oh, and as for that village in Kenya that is missing its idiot, it sounds like a real opportunity for you.  Have you applied?  You should.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

.

Yes, there are shitty, "junk" policies out there.  I've seen 'em, I've spoken with billing departments of doctors offices on behalf of my clients about them.

But they represent a very small portion of the policies that have been taken away.  The rest were plans that were more personalized, working just fine, or didn't include stuff the gods of the ACA deem are "essential", like maternity coverage for a 50-year old guy.

One of two things is happening here:  (a) The apologists don't know this and/or don't care, but they're gonna defend this pig of a law for purely political reasons, or (b) the apologists DO know this and are simply lying.  Either way, they've grabbed on to this bullshit "junk policy" meme and they've run with it, probably because they've determined it's all they have here.

It really is that simple.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Yes, there are shitty, "junk" policies out there.  I've seen 'em, I've spoken with billing departments of doctors offices on behalf of my clients about them.
> 
> ...



It strikes me that if these plans were so good, big insurance wouldn't have had a problem modifying them to comply. 

I mean, you can whine about the 50 year old's maternity coverage all day, but really, if there is never a payout for that, what is the expense, exactly?  

Fact is, simple solution.  No more 8 figure salaries for Insurance CEO's and no dividends paid to Insurance Company stockholders until they create policies that comply.  

Easy-peasy.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




Joe, this is all about the "8 figure salaries" for you, it's not about what I wrote.  You're going to defend this horrific law no matter what it costs or damages, because you just want to get those guys.

.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...



It was all a big secret that was kept from everyone who voted for him, and became just another cover story for the ACA once it's true effects became well known. They feel that calling any cancelled plans "junk plans" excuses the big lie, just like calling the attacks in Benghazi the result of protests over some stupid video on youtube. 

Both are bold-faced lies.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



The Horrific Part was what "those guys" did.  Sold people shit insurance, and then claimed Acne was a pre-existing condition for cancer or that a liver transplant was "expiramental" and let a 17 year old girl die.   And then they collected their 8 figure salaries and thought all was good, with 46 million uninsured and 25 million underinsured (most of the plans that are being cancelled).  

Now, we could have just extended Medicare to everyone, and called it a day.  Doctors wouldn't like not making as much money, and the other parasites would be eliminated completely...  

But you guys were so intent that "those guys" get to keep making their profits, and things that would have prevented these problems like a Public Option or a Medicare Buy-In for those over 55 (who can't get decent insurance for love or money), and now you are weeping crocadile tears for the poor schlub who didn't realize how badly he was being ripped off?


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Joe, it really is clear you don't know how this works, and that you're buying in to the standard propaganda because it fits nicely with your rage.  I get that.

Your post is so replete with a lack of understanding that I don't have the energy.  

And before you (once again) simplistically lump me in with "you guys", you may want to review what I would like to see, which is based on a decent understanding of health care costing, pricing, reimbursement and delivery, and not on rage & ignorance: Post *43*, http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-politics-and-unintended-consequences-3.html

You're very angry and you simply and clearly don't understand the terribly complex nature of the topic you're discussing.  Not much I can do with that.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> [quo
> 
> Joe, it really is clear you don't know how this works, and that you're buying in to the standard propaganda because it fits nicely with your rage.  I get that.
> 
> ...



No, guy this is NOT fucking complicated.  In fact, EVERY OTHER COUNTRY has figured this out, provide universal coverage at a fraction of what we are spending, and they get far better results.  

Ed Hanaway's 83 million dollar package for not working anymore is not necessary to providing good health care.  But they gave it to him because he was the guy who decided people like Nataline Sarkisyan were too expensive to keep alive.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > [quo
> ...




While I prefer the plan I provided, I would actually take single payer over this horrific monstrosity.  The Democrats were afraid to have that conversation, so here we are.  And you guys will have to defend it.  

This is gonna be a shitstorm, so have your ducks in a row to spin for it.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> [
> 
> 
> While I prefer the plan I provided, I would actually take single payer over this horrific monstrosity.  The Democrats were afraid to have that conversation, so here we are.  And you guys will have to defend it.
> ...



Guy, I've been hearing that shit from the "Oh my god, the Black guy stole Romney's  Plan" crowd for the last four years.  ObamaCare is going to eat your babies and shit.  It's tiresome.  

Do I think ObamaCare made too many comprimises in order to get passed?  Yup.  

Do I think it's needlessly bureaucratic? Absolutely.  

Is it still a damn sight better than what we had?  Yes, yes it is.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



A damn sight better?

The name of the law should be changed to fit what it does.

It makes health care less affordable, so the name doesn't fit. That is what it does. That, contrary to what you claim, is what it's designed to do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Actually, it insures more people than we had insured before.  

In teh process, it eliminates plans that were garbage that insurance companies sold with a straight face.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...




The damage is already happening, and it was all predictable.  

We can also look at the wheels in motion and see clearly where they are going.

All I'd have to do is point at it and say, "holy shit, look at THAT."

But I'd be wasting my time.

.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Since that was the only proof you gave, your proof is based on a Hollywood movie.
The primary reason for bankruptcy is credit card debt, not medical expenses. But even if it were, that is irreelvant here.  Plenty of people have medical insurance and still have to file.  So what?
People chose those plans and paid for them.  Sometimes they maintained them for years.  They were clearly not all "junk" plans.  The vast majority were not.  The proof is that they were renewed year after year.


----------



## zeke (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...




LMAO. Everybody is "very angry" if they don't agree with you Mac. You ever notice that?
And how is it that YOU are the only one with "understanding". But no solutions eh? Just what good is your supposed understanding if you can't solve any of the problems? Just curious, don't go off on how I must be so angry.

I'm not angry Mac, I have decent health coverage. My daughter with cervical cancer issues got health care through Obamacare. Yea Mac this is a terrible thing.

You don't have a good health insurance policy do you MAc?


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Is the far left afraid of this thread as well?
> ...


Maybe they are waking up to the fact that Obama & Co. not only lied to America, but to them specifically.  Remember, not a single GOP vote was cast on this law.  Which means, that the Dems were lied to about keeping your doctor and healthcare plan if you were happy with it.

The optics, they are not quite what they should be for them, eh?


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



See to Joe anything that sticks it to people and gives government more control is a damn sight better.
Obamacare has raised medical costs, including insurance premiums, tremendously for the average person.  It has caused more people to be uninsured than to be insured.
In all Obamacare has failed every promise that was made for it.  Every single one.
If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.  Period.
Obamacare will not add one thin dime to the deficit
Obamacare will bend the cost curve down.
Every one of these statements was a lie.  And the people saying it knew it was a lie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> [
> 
> See to Joe anything that sticks it to people and gives government more control is a damn sight better.
> Obamacare has raised medical costs, including insurance premiums, tremendously for the average person.  It has caused more people to be uninsured than to be insured.
> ...



Guy, my insurance costs the same next year as it does this year.  And the same is the case for most of the 130 million people who get their insurance through their employers or unions. 

It also costs the same for the 100 million who are already getting care through government programs.  

So most "average" people, no change.  

46 million people who weren't covered before are getting an improvement. 

The people who are having a problem are about 5 million who bought cut-rate plans that didn't cover anything. 

BUt keep screaming hysterically, like you guys did with Social Security and Medicare. ObamaCare will eventually become a third rail you don't dare touch.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

zeke said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




I'll once again be happy to respond to your questions, even though we both know you won't return the courtesy.

"But no solutions, eh?" - You (once again) have failed to read my post.  A basic outline of what I would like to see can be found here at post 43: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-politics-and-unintended-consequences-3.html

"... supposed understanding..." - While I have to constantly train on stuff like this for my profession, you don't need to believe any of it.  But if you had even *one half of one ounce* of intellectual curiosity, you would check it out yourself, and you would find that I'm correct.  I know you won't.

And, since I don't qualify for subsidies and I do have an individual policy, both my premiums and deductibles are going up significantly for 2014.  You can choose to believe that or not.

Last time, Zeke.  Either grow up and quit the games or I'll just put you on ignore and save the effort it takes to respond to your consistently intellectually dishonest posts.  You're a liar and a coward, and I've had enough.

Thanks.

.


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > If these were junk or sub standard plans simple question why didn't Obama and the Democrats tell the public over and over and over they would be losing their junk/substandard plan and getting a better one in return instead of if you like your plan you can keep it period?
> ...


Now I know you are a liar.  You are far too ignorant to waste time on.

Off to the ignore list for you.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You know union plans were exempt, right?
The mandate for employers has not kicked in yet, thanks to Obama's illegal action.  That is the only reason many more people have not been kicked on to the exchanges.
You can dismiss 5M people if you want.  You don't give a shit about people anyway.


----------



## zeke (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Fuck you Mac. Do the ignore thing. It's what I do with the nonsense you post. Unless I get to fuck with you like I just did. Carry on asshole.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



We don't know anyone who it has insured. There are no guarantees. 

Also, nearly 6 million people lost their coverage so it has taken away more coverage than it will ever give.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

More people have seen Elvis since his death than have signed up for Obamacare.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

zeke said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...




Done.

Best wishes.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> [
> I'll once again be happy to respond to your questions, even though we both know you won't return the courtesy.
> 
> "But no solutions, eh?" - You (once again) have failed to read my post.  A basic outline of what I would like to see can be found here at post 43: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-politics-and-unintended-consequences-3.html
> ...



Mac, Upton Sinclair once observed, "It's difficult to get a man to understand a problem if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."  

I did take the time to read Post #43, and it's just more of that "Market Will Provide" kind of thinking that the Market is this magic fairy that cures everything.  

Having been on the receiving end of that kind of thinking, I'm a tad skeptical. 

The reason why the system works at all is because the government ALREADY took responsibility for the people private insurance wouldn't touch, and private insurance itself only exists because of generous tax incentives and corporate welfare.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> [
> 
> We don't know anyone who it has insured. There are no guarantees.
> 
> Also, nearly 6 million people lost their coverage so it has taken away more coverage than it will ever give.



Using an absolute like "ever" is misleading. 

Fact is, the non-sick won't sign up until the last minute. This is exactly how it played out with RomneyCare, and how it will probably play out here.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You dont understand the market system.  Why is this surprising?
Private insurance exits because there is a need for sucha  thing.  It is screwedup because of tax incentives and gov't regulation.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



If they don't need it, why will they sign up?  It will be cheaper to pay the penalty and just use the ER for critical care.
Just like what happened under Romneycare.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> [
> 
> You dont understand the market system.  Why is this surprising?
> Private insurance exits because there is a need for sucha  thing.  It is screwedup because of tax incentives and gov't regulation.



No, private insurance exists because back in the 1940's, government froze wages to  keep people from job hopping when unemployment dropped to 0 and they had to employ just about anyone to keep war production running with 16 million men in uniform.  So they developed this benefit to attract good help. 

And since then, they've had to do all sorts of tricks to keep the system afloat, because in the long run, you can't insure people's health the way you insure their car or their house.  There is a 100% chance you are going to die, eventually. 

Without incentives, no one would be able to get affordable insurance who actually needed it, and people who didn't need it wouldn't buy it.


----------



## zeke (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Ima heartbroken I tell you. Heartbroken.

Mac here says he has all the answers. The problem is no one in the Republican party would listen to him either.

Insurance companies wrote the ACA. But Mac want to condemn the Democrats for putting the plan together. Even though insurance companies (those same companies that would "fix" these problems IF Obama care hadn't been passed. LMAO.) wrote the plan.

There is no solution to our fucked up health care coverage other than what Joe advocates all the time; single payer. Like most of the other industrialized countries have figured out how to  provide. Like we should have had.

But really Mac, after calling me a liar and a coward and then throw in that "best wishes" bull shit. WTF is wrong with you? No balls? Hiding behind the "ignore" button. Why?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



RomneyCare was completely successful.  

It was a pity Romney didn't run on it.  He  might have won.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


If you dont count the enormous expenses you might be right.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 9, 2013)

Clementine said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




BINGO.  And the free market solution would be to decouple Service Contracts (paying for routine stuff) from Castrophic Care Insurance (real insurance).


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



No, this was rarely brought up by any of the Obamaslaves.

It is a germane topic for discussion relative to health care.

The point of the OP which you have helped derail is that you never heard the term Junk Plan spouted off by Pelosi, Biden or Obama......you never heard those senators say that (well, I say never...I am sure someone has a clip of somone saying something once or twice), but that not with the frequency that you heard you can keep your plan.

What you heard after the AAM got caught in the BIG LIE was Junk Plan...after he told everyone they could keep their plans.

I had two plans that were good for me...they are both gone and the replacements bring me no value but cost me a lot of more.

These plans suddenly became junk plans when it was convenient for them to become junk plans.

There were bad plans out there...this, I know.  But that wasn't all of them.

And more to the point, this administration out-and-out lied.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > If these were junk or sub standard plans simple question why didn't Obama and the Democrats tell the public over and over and over they would be losing their junk/substandard plan and getting a better one in return instead of if you like your plan you can keep it period?
> ...



Doctor will not turn you away. They will tell you if is covered or not, although you should know what coverage you have before you go to the doctor. You can still accept doctor service, and he will send you a bill.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> My last post for the evening Obama never said if you like your plan you can keep unless it's a junk plan he never said you can keep any plan except a junk plan he said if you like your current plan and doctor you can keep them period. The term junk, garbage, and sub standard plan did not come into play until millions of people got cancellation notices and everybody started asking Obama about the thirty something times he said if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them period. Something else that has been forgotten here was it not HHS and Kathleen Sebelius who rewrote the rules that made it all but impossible for the people to keep those plans?






The White House set up an email for people to report to when they heard dissenters telling the truth about how you won't be able to keep your insurance.  They made a public service announcement saying what liars people who contradicted the "if you like your insurance you can keep it" mantra.  They spent tax payer dollars to harass and vilify people who told the truth.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > My last post for the evening Obama never said if you like your plan you can keep unless it's a junk plan he never said you can keep any plan except a junk plan he said if you like your current plan and doctor you can keep them period. The term junk, garbage, and sub standard plan did not come into play until millions of people got cancellation notices and everybody started asking Obama about the thirty something times he said if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them period. Something else that has been forgotten here was it not HHS and Kathleen Sebelius who rewrote the rules that made it all but impossible for the people to keep those plans?
> ...



I am skeptical.....

But if you have a link, I'd sure like to have it.  

This would be akin to the SS Youth of Hitler's time.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Really?

If people chose plan like that, isn't that their responsibility?

And tell me, why should I pay for coverage that I simply don't need?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Wacky Quacky said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Junk plans were made possible by a health care industry which invested trillions of dollars into the elections of our politicians. They did this in order to create a state protected monopoly.
> ...




It's okay.  They just need to make sure they don't sprain their ankles or break their arms or catch the flu.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Cancer Patient Bill Elliott Audited By IRS After ObamaCare Drops Insurance - Investors.com

 A cancer patient who spoke out against the cancellation of his insurance by ObamaCare now faces an IRS audit he may not live to see, and says he'll pay the fine rather than burden his family.

Bill Elliott knows the meaning of the adage that the only two things that are certain are death and taxes, for he is now staring both in the face.

Like the Tea Party before him, Elliott faces an IRS audit for speaking out against the ObamaCare that canceled his insurance coverage he liked and was promised he could keep.

He appeared recently on Charleston, S.C.'s WQSC and was told by the radio host that "you stood up and spoke out about how ObamaCare screwed over your insurance and probably would kill you, and what's the next thing that happened? You get audited by the IRS. That is not a coincidence."

Elliott responded, "No, it's not."

"I like my doctor. I love my insurance," Elliott told Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly last Thursday night. "They were paying just about everything, including medication and medical devices."

Then he got the letter that told him that his cancer was considered "beyond a catastrophic pre-existing condition" and his plan was being canceled because of new regulations.

Elliott says he was given the option of a new $1,500-per-month plan, up from the $180 per month or so that he'd been paying.

"Now with ObamaCare, the man that I've got looked into it, they are not going to pay for pharmaceuticals or medical devices. MRI that I had last month before I got canceled was $3,000. Now, if I have to have another one, it costs me out of my pocket $3,000," Elliott told Kelly on Nov. 7.

"I've thought about this long and hard," Elliott said. "When my insurance comes out, just for me, it will be $1,500 a month with a $13,500 deductible. I'm not going to pay that. If I make it that long, I will pay the $95 fine and let nature take its course."

Elliott told Kelly he actually voted for Obama over Mitt Romney last year specifically because he liked what Obama had promised about being able to keep your doctors and your insurance plans.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 9, 2013)

Even the insurance broker who helped Elliot keep his HC plan got audit notice!

IRS goes after ObamaCare critic C. Steven Tucker, and South Carolina cancer patient - Illinois Review

_CHICAGO - One afternoon a few weeks ago, Chicago insurance broker and ObamaCare critic C. Steven Tucker happened to see a cancer patient tell Fox News' Megyn Kelly about losing his health care insurance policy. Tucker looked up the South Carolina resident on Facebook and offered to help him find health care coverage immediately, so his badly-needed cancer treatments could continue. 

Tucker and cancer patient Bill Elliott connected and Tucker was able to find Elliott the help he needed. Elliott publicly thanked Tucker for his life-saving assistance, but little did either know they would soon be fighting another battle - this one with the Internal Revenue Service.

Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, both Tucker and Elliott received official notifications that they were being audited by the Internal Revenue Service. 

Elliott, who is a retired government worker, was told he would be facing audit in 2014. Tucker says the IRS letter to him demands $4000 from 2003 and $2000 from 2010 be paid before December 26, 2013.

The seeming coincidence of two vaguely connected persons getting notice they are being investigated by the federal government is sending shock waves throughout the web. A growing number is wondering if the message is "Don't publicly embarrass or challenge ObamaCare, or you could face the IRS." 

The IRS has been used in the past by at least one presidential administration to intimidate political enemies. President Richard Nixon faced impeachment for using the IRS. Article 2, Section 1 of Nixon's impeachment charges says:_


----------



## BluesMistress (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Junk Plans?? All Plans are overseen and regulated by each state. You are being untruthful and lying when you say you've seen people being turned away by staff because they already know that they don't/won't pay. You're an Idiot that knows absolutely nothing about how a medical office works ~ Sheeeesh...I don't have time to go over all of your Misconceptions, misrepresentation and outright lies. 
The patient is not responsible for $1200. they are usually responsible for 20-30% of the $600 that was agreed upon...The group plan hpo/ppo has already set a limit as to what it will pay, much like obamacare. The Ins co & provider have already set the terms. It's called a Contract!! Those so called junk plans paid or they would be put out of business by the STATE Insurance commission. The difference is obamacare is costing a whole lot more and paying a whole lot less. If there is a so called "Junk Plan" it most certainly is Obamacare!!!

A Big Difference between romneycare & obamacare is that if anyone chose not to participant they had the choice to move to another state!!! It doesn't hide and lie about what it is. Don't like it Move. We Could have easily bought nice "Junk Plans"  for all the uninsured for many years just for the price of a fucked up website! Think about that!!


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



A most excellent post.

Rep on the way.

But, again I would remind people that what I am looking for is clips where the left callled these things junk plans in advance of the Big Lie (oh, and told people they would NOT be able to keep them).


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So you watch the Hollywood movie from activist like Damon, and you assume that all industry is like that. 
Beside of all, why should anyone care about idiots that buys something and don't know what they bought. Try to understand that government can't protect anyone from being stupid.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Pay out for that coverage is not a problem. Pay in is.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What's the number of people that got coverage under ACA and how many people lost insurance because of ACA? 

And please remind everyone here, under ACA how many people will still be uninsured when it's all implemented?


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

What makes Obama's lie so insidious is that "you can keep your plan if you like it" carries with it a very strong implication of protecting your personal freedom.  

The truth is that ObamaCare is the obverse.  It is a removal of personal liberty.


The father of ObamaCare also removed personal liberty.  It also required people to get insurance that met the State's minimum standards.  Of course, I am talking about RomneyCare.

And the GOP rewarded Romney by trying to make him President.  Twice.


Sooner or later, you will all realize your own party sold you down the river to the liberals.  Don't let your judgment be overridden by all their smoke you are inhaling.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The Rabbi, they always have excuses... Union are some "special deal", just as some preferred companies (campaign donors). Take a look at penalties for not having insurance from next year. 
2014 - up to $285 for family or 1% of income 
2015 - up to $975 for family or 2% of income
2016 - up to $2085 for family or 2.5% of income
See the difference? Do they really care about people having insurance or it's just about money?


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Exempt from what?

They were not exempt from the minimum standards requirement.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Every time government gets involved in social engineering it backfires. You said it yourself. What makes you think it wont backfire this time?


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What a pile of bullshit.



JoeB131 said:


> There is a 100% chance you are going to die, eventually.



And yet I can buy life insurance the same way I buy my auto or home insurance.  Cheaply.




JoeB131 said:


> Without incentives, no one would be able to get affordable insurance who actually needed it, and people who didn't need it wouldn't buy it.



One of the reasons health insurance costs outpace inflation is because of employer-sponsored health insurance.  That is a big labor union boondoggle.

Another reason is because the government has been in the health insurance market for a very long time and yet is allowed to write the rules its private sector competitors must follow!  Is it really a surprise the private sector is hobbled?

I can pick up the phone and buy home, auto, or life insurance from any insurance company in the country.  And I can choose which options I do or do not want.  This nationwide competition and personal liberty of choice provide me tremendous bargaining leverage.

None of this leverage is available to me for health insurance.  The reason you "can't insure people's health the way you insure their car or their house", as you stated, is precisely because the government prevents you from being able to do so.  

People who are insured through their employer are in a pool which is limited by the number of employees.  So a small employer has very little leverage with an insurance company.  In turn, the insurance company is geographically limited by the government, and therefore has less leverage with a health care provider.

The government, on the other hand, allows itself to insure people across the entire country, thereby providing it with massive leverage with health care providers.

This is a giant pile of bullshit.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Just found out one difference between our pre-Obama and post-Obama healthcare.

Now hubby only sees the doctor 2 times a year for his diabetes labwork and feedback instead of 4.  Which is probably okay.  But it's a difference.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

I agree completely with you g5000.

Let's compare ACA with auto insurance.

You own a car, you think you're good driver and you chose to buy insurance with lets say $500 deductible on collision and $250 on comprehensive, $100k limit on medical expenses etc. and you pay lets say $100 a month.

Then government steps in and decide you policy is a junk, because your policy doesn't cover the motorcycle and boat. It doesn't matter you don't own neither one, you have to have it. Then they force your insurance company to include those in your policy with sales pitch that having everyone pay into pool will lower cost for everyone else including you. By the way, they also promise that if you like your current policy, you can keep it. And if you don't buy it, you'll pay anyways, thru penalties (remember, it's not a tax).

What happens next is, your insurance drops your policy, offers you new one that is government approved, at the cost of $180 a month. It cost more, but it offers more services you don't really need. Now, since you're paying for bike and boat insurance, you gonna go and buy bike for a kid you don't have and a boat for yourself. Government will claim they improved economy and created jobs.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Please...

I'd love to have a link to this e-mail address.  Do you know if this has been reported to the MSM ?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...





You don't remember that?  It's not a new thing.  Reminders of it have been posted recently.  I'll try to find it again.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...





It's old news:

Facts Are Stubborn Things | The White House



> ....
> 
> For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.
> 
> ...


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



That does not accuse people of being liars for pointing out Obama's lie.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

Ame®icano;8271587 said:
			
		

> I agree completely with you g5000.
> 
> Let's compare ACA with auto insurance.
> 
> ...



What's more, government stifles innovation.

Much whining is done over the fact the private sector makes profits.  ObamaCare even has a provision for confiscating profits the government considers excessive!  It is astonishing the number of incredible precedents that are set by this monstrous piece of legislation.

There seems to be a flawed premise behind this "profits are evil" thinking that since government does not make a profit, it would cost less to provide a service or product than a company which adds a margin of profit to the price of its service or products.

The history of centrally planned economies demonstrates the sheer folly of this bogus premise.

The innovation of the private sector leads to products or services being made more cheaply and with more features.  So even after adding in the profit, the consumer still comes out ahead.  The consumer receives a superior service at a lower price.

One of the downsides of the innovative private sector driven economy, though, is overkill.  Especially in the health care industry.  When an x-ray would probably suffice, we throw an MRI or PET scan at a problem.  And this adds to the cost of health care.

Unfortunately, any attempt these days to introduce a little common sense to that downside leads to hysterical screams of "Death panels!"


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




Watch the video before the section I quoted.   Linda Douglass's rebuttal to what she claims is deception and disinformation is  something she claims we probably won't show -- which is Obama promising that we can keep our insurance and doctors and saying that "nobody is trying to change what works in the system."   On behalf of the White House she accused dissenters of disinformation and deception and her trump card was to play Obama's lies for us again.  And then after the video which so nicely highlighted Obama's lies is the email address where people could send reports when they hear something "fishy", i.e., something which contradicts Obama's lies.




And then there is what Sebelius and friends did to businesses who dabbled in uncomfortable truthtelling.


----------



## oreo (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...



They became junk when Obama told us they were JUNK plans, of course and only after Obama promised the American public that if they liked their plans they could keep them.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

In addition to the attacks coming from Sebelius and Senate Democrats here is vile Obama threatening people for looking out for their own interest in the face of his shameless lies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18address.html

Published: October 17, 2009


> WASHINGTON &#8212; President Obama mounted a frontal assault on the insurance industry on Saturday, accusing it of using &#8220;deceptive and dishonest ads&#8221; to derail his health care legislation and threatening to strip the industry of its longstanding exemption from federal antitrust laws.
> 
> In unusually harsh terms, Mr. Obama cast insurance companies as obstacles to change interested only in preserving their own &#8220;profits and bonuses&#8221; and willing to &#8220;bend the truth or break it&#8221; to stop his drive to remake the nation&#8217;s health care system. The president used his weekly radio and Internet address to challenge industry assertions that legislation will drive up premiums.
> 
> ...





Shameless, vile Obama and the rest of the Democrats who knew that if they told the truth they wouldn't be able to upend our insurance market "for our own good".  They have turned me into a hater. Yes, I HATE these people for how shamelessly they flouted legislative tradition to push through their lies and how nasty they have been to so many Americans on so many levels for objecting to their lies.  I HATE them.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I think you're the most ignorant poster on this site.  Every post is filled with half truths and distortions. T his was a good example of it.
Private insurance existed before the war.  What the war did was encourage companies to offer the insurance as a benefit, because it fell outside of wage controls. (Another example of what happens when gov't tries to control something).  It was deductible to the company as an expense.
But private insurance on the individual market was unaffected by that. It is still not deductible as an expense the same way company plans are.  That isn't "keeping it afloat."  that is a distortion brought on by economic polciies.
In the long run all cars break down.  In the long run houses fall down.  You clearly do not understand health insurance or insurance in general.  Why is this not surprising to me?


----------



## oreo (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> In addition to the attacks coming from Sebelius and Senate Democrats here is vile Obama threatening people for looking out for their own interest in the face of his shameless lies:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18address.html
> 
> ...




Well--this is very typical of Barack Obama.  Find someone--anyone other than his administration to blame for the failures of his administration.  I am surprised Bush's name has not been mentioned over the Obamacare disaster as yet--






yet.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



Funny, that isn't what Obama said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



I will have to make a note to come back here and neg you again for making an argument so stupid that even Obama didn't try it. I really don't think they would let me get away with using the appropriate language necessary to deal with the level of stupidity that  you just uttered.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]

If there is anyone that is capable of dealing with the steaming pile of shit that calls itself JoeB please ask him to address something for the rest of us. Ask him to explain, in detail, how insurance companies are supposed to deal with the regulations that are deliberately designed to prevent insurance companies from using easy peasy methods to deal with new requirements under Obamacare when the regulations written by the Obama HHS state that modifying the plans to bring them into compliance requires that they cancel the non compliant policy and sell a new one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



I know how you feel. The guy posts the same drivel every single time, even after he reads the facts that contradict his drivel. The saddest part is I know he reads the other stuff, it just doesn't matter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It does? Can you prove that with actual numbers,, not pie in the sky projections that assume that the law will get more popular over time?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No it doesn't, and you will see that when the employer mandate, which was illegally delayed by Obama, kicks in. I hope you survive the brain aneurism that you end up with just so I can laugh at you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Successful at what?

By the way, he did run on it, why the fuck do you think he lost?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



No, it encourages you to report people who call him a lair to the White House, which is not the same thing.

Funny thing, I reported myself at least 100 times for calling Obama out on shit like this, I never heard anything from them for my efforts.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




No, Joe, it wasn't.  You know better than that.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



No, it encourages you to report liars.  "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy".


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




It accused people of deception and disinformation if their message contradicted Obama's "you can keep your plan and doctor" message.  

And it used taxpayer money to spread Obama's lies and to encourage people to report those who dared to contradict Obama's lies with "fishy" truth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



C'mon now, it was great. People paid more, got less, and the federal government bailed the state out every year because of the rising costs. Just think, if it wasn't for Romneycare the deficit would be significantly less than it is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




Like one that says you won't be able to keep your plan, or your doctor?


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

.

There's no talking to the apologists.  Present them with any fact you want, patiently walk them through the provider contracting, reimbursement and subsidy process from start to finish, show them *what is already happening*, try to educate them on fundamental health care economics and/or business economics, provide them with evidence that they could easily verify with little effort, and they just deny and spout off diversionary platitudes.

I tried, with respect and civility, to hell with it.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Ame®icano;8271476 said:
			
		

> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The thing is, what they did in the 1940's DIDN'T backfire.  It did exactly what it was designed to do, keep trained workers on those assembly lines making Sherman Tanks and B-17 bombers. 

The problem of course, is when the rest of the world was developing universal coverage, we let the insurance industry call the shot on our system.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Maybe in your delusional, drug-free world he did. 

In the real world he ran from RomneyCare faster than a sister-wife.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> [
> 
> I know how you feel. The guy posts the same drivel every single time, even after he reads the facts that contradict his drivel. The saddest part is I know he reads the other stuff, it just doesn't matter.



No, it doesn't. 

Because honestly, if Mitt ROmney had won in 2008 and had implemented the EXACT SAME PLAN, you whacks would be praising the shit out of it and you know it.  

But man, the Negro does it, and you are all nuts.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes!  Just like that!


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Romeny ran against ObamaCare.   That is why he lost.  He deflected away from RomneyCare as much as he could.

Romney made the election all about ObamaCare, and so did Obama.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



It's not that he doesn't KNOW how it works.  Joey is UNINTERESTED in knowing how it works.  He's perfectly happy to destroy people's health plans as long as he can stick it to a few of the "eeeeeeeeeeeevil rich" in the process.   I'm not sure if Joey is batshit crazy or pure evil.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, we'd be screaming for his impeachment....and promising to make him a one termer.

How the hell do you know what we'd do.  He lost conservatives because of Romneycare.....which was stupid because it is within the perview of a state to do such a thing.

Quit with the Race Baiting bullshyt.

If Obama started actiling like a Republican, killed Obamacare, reduced spending, reformed entitlements, let GM go under, stopped with the stupid Foreign Policy....etc etc.

I'd try to get him a third term.

The race hard is nothing more than an enema that shows what you guys are really made of.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 9, 2013)

Obama is anti-choice.

The Democrats have taken away your ability to choose.   This is not between you and your doctor any more.  The government is not going to allow you to make your own health care decisions. Your right to privacy has been taken from  you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> [
> 
> It's not that he doesn't KNOW how it works.  Joey is UNINTERESTED in knowing how it works.  He's perfectly happy to destroy people's health plans as long as he can stick it to a few of the "eeeeeeeeeeeevil rich" in the process.   I'm not sure if Joey is batshit crazy or pure evil.



Once more. 

Every other industrialized country has either Single Payer or Universal Coverage.  

They spend less and get vastly better results.  Maybe a rich person has to share a hospital room with a poor one. 

So when I hear a guy like Mac who is part of the current system tell me how well the system works, I just have to laugh.  The system doesn't work.  The election of 2012 was between two guys who tried to fix it in their own ways.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 9, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Spot on!  All I want is catastrophic care insurance...but no, if it's not a gold-plated plan, it is not permitted!


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> [
> 
> No, we'd be screaming for his impeachment....and promising to make him a one termer.
> 
> ...



Guy, I know you are a Mormon and therefore, likely to believe just about anything... 

But Romney did not "lose" conservatives. 

Romney got 82% of the self-described "conservative" vote.   That is 4% more of it than McCain got and only 2% less than George W. Bush got in 2004. 



> If Obama started actiling like a Republican, killed Obamacare, reduced spending, reformed entitlements, let GM go under, stopped with the stupid Foreign Policy....etc etc.



So if he were the same kind of mean-spirited douchebag you are, you'd totally vote for him.  

Got it.  

No one else would, though.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Oh, the straw men...

I've never said "how well the system works".  I think -- as you well know -- that we can make significant but manageable changes that would give us one health care system instead of six.  And now your end of the spectrum is forced to defend this ridiculous plan. That's not my fault. 

Please don't drag me into conversations by knowingly misrepresenting my opinion.  There's more than enough intellectual dishonesty here already.

.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



He's already a mean-spirited douchebag.......I still think he's not worth voting for.


----------



## B. Kidd (Dec 9, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Great post!
Maybe a class-action suit should be brought against State Insurance Commissions' for allowing insurance companies to previously sell insurance that is now considered 'junk'.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

B. Kidd said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Well, the only problem is who decides what is junk?

Can't be Obama himself. Has to be somebody non-biased.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It is all the far left Obama drones have left in them. 

They know that their propaganda does not hold up to actual facts and thus have to resort to such tactics. However it does show that the true racists are the far left.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Those that voted...braindead.

What you know could be identified only with the help of a microscope.

What you don't know would fill a swimming pool.

You really need to ask for your money back.  Whoever you paid for an education really screwed you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Dude, you were unable to refute a single point I made.  

Honestly, kind of what I expect when talking with LDS types.  no reasoning skill at all.  The Magic Underwear blocks it out.  

Didn't you promise to never come back if Romney lost?


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



He's an LDS?

He's also a LOTR proponent too. 

That's two things we have in common.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Yeah, Listening and Avatar were part of the Mormon Brigade who thought Romney was the White Horse prophecy or some such shit.  

Until he lost.  

Then they didn't want to be caught having a hot chocolate with the guy.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...





Lord of the Rings?


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yup.....his avi has the one ring in it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Ame®icano;8271476 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's because Europeans are a different kind of people.  They are the descendants of serfs who believe in royal patronage.   The Lord of the Land takes care of you.   It is the Lord who permits you to keep enough food to feed yourself and your family.   It is the Lord who hands out gold favor.  The freedom loving rebels came here.   If you don't like your insurance company as Mitt Romney says "I like to fire them".   You get to fire your insurance company and hire a new insurance company.   Europeans don't want to be bothered by those decisions.  That's the Lord's business, the Duke's and eventually the King's.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Ame®icano;8271476 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have a degree in alternate history?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...




Ohhhh.  

Gotcha.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, guy, that's not how it happened.  

How it happened was that some of those countries had universal health care before the war (Namely Germany).  But most of the rest relied on New Dealers from this country to help them set up their post-war governments, and the New Dealers said, "Hey, let's try some of the shit Republicans would never let us do in America!"  

And if you think most of us really had the option of "firing" our insurance companies, you are God's Own Special Retard.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Remember me? The batshit crazy, Molotov cocktail throwing, anarchist? Romney didn't run in 2008, and I oppose government even when Republicans are in charge


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Do you have a degree in alternate history?



yeah, guy, it's the alternative history you'd find out about if you took your medications.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You didn't make a point to refute.

Percentages don't mean squat.  It's the absolute numbers that matter and obviously, Romeny didn't get enough of that.  Given Obama's lackluster performance at the polls...somebody stayed home.

Must you always be so bitter when it comes to the fact that people don't like you ?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Well, at least you are admitting that you are batshit crazy.  That's a start. 

Oh. Romney did run in 2008.  He just didn't get the nomination.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Sure he did.

Romney on Romneycare: 'I Am Not Going to Walk Away From That' | National Review Online


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> [
> 
> You didn't make a point to refute.
> 
> Must you always be so bitter when it comes to the fact that people don't like you ?



No, guy, you made a claim conservatives didn't vote for your fellow Mormon Cultist, Mitt Romney... 

When in fact, he got 4% more of the Conservative vote than John McCain did. 

And I'm bitter because when I had the bad fortune of being in a place where your sick little cult had some power, you totally abused it.  

So now I make it my life's mission to ridicule your cult whenever possible.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> [
> 
> You didn't make a point to refute.
> 
> Percentages don't mean squat.  It's the absolute numbers that matter and obviously, Romeny didn't get enough of that.  Given Obama's lackluster performance at the polls...somebody stayed home.



Uh, no, guy. 

Romney actually got MORE votes than McCain did. Not by much, but he got more.  And he only got slightly less than bush did in 2004.  Which is pretty much everything that could go right for the GOP going right.  

Obama did get 3 million less votes than he did in 2008.  But the point is- WHERE did he get less votes.  

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...1oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true#gid=19

Here's a helpful chart about voter turnout.  It was less in states that were not battleground states.  In short, we knew Romney would take Wymoing and Obama would take Illinois... So no big surprise, voting totals were down in those states.  

Most of the non-battleground states, the voting totals were down. (Ironically, it was up in Utah, the "Mormon Moment" was here.) 

Now in the 12 "Swing States", voter participation was up in 9 of them.  ANd Obama won 11 of the 12. (only losing North Carolina, where the voter particiaption was up 4.51%)


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



McCain lost.....so what's your point?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> [
> 
> McCain lost.....so what's your point?



And so did Romney.  

The point being, the claim is being made that Romney lost because "conservatives" didn't show up for him.  

When in fact, they did.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 9, 2013)

OP- Since 3/4 of medical bankruptcies are people who thought they had good insurance, it's obvious the dupes are perfect chumps of not only Pubs...


----------



## Flopper (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...


Getting rid of junk insurance plans, not to be confused with high deductible catastrophic plans have been a goal since day one.  Junk health insurance plans provide some coverage for day to day healthcare but fail to provide converge for real major medical expenses.  Barebones plans, Mimi- med plans, healthcare cards are typical junk plans.  According to Forbes, there are over 1200 such plans covering nearly 4 million people.  Most but not all of these plans are illegal under the ACA.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The real numbers are that 8 million less votes for Obama than in 2008 and Romney got 1 million less votes than McCain did. Had Romney matched McCain it would have been a close race.

And of course we have the far left Obama drone talking points in all this.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> OP- Since 3/4 of medical bankruptcies are people who thought they had good insurance, it's obvious the dupes are perfect chumps of not only Pubs...



Link!


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Kosh said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




Romney got more votes than McCain.

McCain: 59,948,323

Romney: 60,933,500


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Kosh said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > OP- Since 3/4 of medical bankruptcies are people who thought they had good insurance, it's obvious the dupes are perfect chumps of not only Pubs...
> ...





Don't hold your breath on that one!


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> OP- Since 3/4 of medical bankruptcies are people who thought they had good insurance, it's obvious the dupes are perfect chumps of not only Pubs...



So that makes the lies okay?

Sorry, there's word for someone who's afraid to tell the truth.

Coward.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Now you have done it, I can't argue with the far left just to argue.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> OP- Since 3/4 of medical bankruptcies are people who thought they had good insurance, it's obvious the dupes are perfect chumps of not only Pubs...





This is pretty funny considering how many people are going to find their budgets pinched to the max by the higher premiums and/or unaffordable deductibles Obama has forced on them.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> OP- Since 3/4 of medical bankruptcies are people who thought they had good insurance, it's obvious the dupes are perfect chumps of not only Pubs...


That's one of the big problems with junk plans.  People show up at hospitals thinking that they actually have insurance coverage only to find out they have a $2,000 yearly maximum, generic drug coverage, or a discount at selected healthcare providers.  People go bust trying to pay off a portion of their hospital bill and the hospital writes off the rest which translates in higher costs for everyone.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > OP- Since 3/4 of medical bankruptcies are people who thought they had good insurance, it's obvious the dupes are perfect chumps of not only Pubs...
> ...



That is also incorrect!

People go to hospitals as they can not be refused to be seen. This is also the place that many illegals go.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 9, 2013)

Here you go, ASSHOLES LOL...

Obamacare Health Plans: Who Needs New Coverage | TIME.com
nation.time.com/.../the-bright-side-of-obamacares-broken-promise/*CachedOct 28, 2013 ... I was thrilled at the chance to finally see a doctor and get insurance. ..... In the 
past, 60% of bankruptcies have been due to unpaid medical bills; of those 60%, 3
/4 had healthcare coverage of the very crappy kind lacking ...
Political Memes: Medical Bill Bankruptcies And Insurance Statistics
politicalmemes.blogspot.com/.../medical-bill-bankruptcies-and-insurance.html*CachedSep 29, 2013 ... 3/4 of those bankrupted had insurance when they got sick. ... 62% of all 
bankruptcies in the U.S. are the result of medical bills. 3/4 of those ...

WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD, DUPES...


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 9, 2013)

Obamacare Health Plans: Who Needs New Coverage | TIME.com


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 9, 2013)

Just check all the dupes defending the stupidest. most ridiculously expensive health scam anywhere....totally misinformed by their heroes...


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 9, 2013)

45 per cent of all bankruptcies are caused by junk policies, and they've never heard of them lol...


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

.

Should be interesting to see how the apologists spin providers being buried in low-reimbursement Medicaid patients, providers not accepting some or all of the insurance and opening concierge practices, much longer waiting times, huge deductibles burying policy owners, hospitals opting out, billing software systems not ready and the lack of "young invincables" throwing the actuarial tables right off the rails.

It won't be fun, of course; but it will be interesting.

They'll blame the GOP and Romney and global warming and racism; they'll divert and deflect and deny.  They'll change the subject to "we should have had single payer", anything to avoid addressing what we're trying to warn about right now, all very predictable stuff, now that we "know what's in it".

And I goddamn well bet you they know what's coming, too.  They just won't take responsibility for it.

.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Medical bankruptcies will continue.

One big difference is that some of the people they will occur to now are people who were responsible and made sure they had insurance and didn't commit to other spending until they took care of that.  But now that Obama has substantially increased their premiums and deductibles all their discretionary income will be sucked up and some of the debts they committed to pre-ACA will be more than they can afford post-ACA.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Of course, financially challenged people who didn't have insurance before will still have medical bankruptcies.  

Deductibles which are half of their income?  Yeah, that's not a nightmare waiting to happen.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Here you go, ASSHOLES LOL...
> 
> Obamacare Health Plans: Who Needs New Coverage | TIME.com
> nation.time.com/.../the-bright-side-of-obamacares-broken-promise/*CachedOct 28, 2013 ... I was thrilled at the chance to finally see a doctor and get insurance. ..... In the
> ...



So you use a far left Obama hack site for your proof?

Might as well have posted something from MSNBC.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

The ACA leaves tens of millions uninsured -- and that estimate was prior to the nation becoming aware of the extent of cancellations and how much more policies would cost.

With all the cancellations, how long will it be before the number of insured people even breaks even?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 9, 2013)

BluesMistress said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


State health insurance laws vary widely from state to state which is why some states had large jumps in premiums when the exchanges opened and others had little or no change.

Junk insurance plans are not sold by the major carriers like UnitedHealth or Aetna but by smaller companies selling over the Internet or by mail.  Most of them are discount plans, and hospitalization with limited benefits.  Although most of these plans will be  stopped by the ACA, some will survive.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Medical bankruptcies will continue.
> 
> One big difference is that some of the people they will occur to now are people who were responsible and made sure they had insurance and didn't commit to other spending until they took care of that.  But now that Obama has substantially increased their premiums and deductibles all their discretionary income will be sucked up and some of the debts they committed to pre-ACA will be more than they can afford post-ACA.




My guess at this point is that we're going to see cut-rate, bare bones clinics popping up to deal with the flood of Medicaid patients.  Maybe they'll be able to recruit new doctors and get some experienced docs to do some pro bono work.  It would look essentially like a clinic in Cuba, the darling health care system of the Left.  Medicaid reimbursement is so low that it will really only cover operating costs, keeping the lights on.  Literally.

The low end here is going to really damage the foundation of the system if something like that doesn't happen.  And those who have to utilize those things, well, tough shit for them.

.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Of course, financially challenged people who didn't have insurance before will still have medical bankruptcies.
> 
> Deductibles which are half of their income?  Yeah, that's not a nightmare waiting to happen.


If their deductible is half their income, they will either qualify for additional subsidies to help pay their deductible or Medicaid which generally has no deductible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I thought the claim was that he would have won if he ran on Romneycare.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, financially challenged people who didn't have insurance before will still have medical bankruptcies.
> ...





Link to subsidies to defray deductible?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



Except that, according to everyone that unconditionally and irrationally supports Obamacare, catastrophic plans with better coverage and lower deductibles are junk now because Obama said they are. Since you didn't actually address that, and that is the question that was asked in the OP, you seem to be one of the stupid group.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


But the Affordable Care Act also established another type of financial assistance for people who buy plans on the marketplaces, also known as exchanges. Cost-sharing subsidies can substantially reduce the deductibles, copayments, coinsurance and total out-of-pocket spending limits for people with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($58,875 for a family of four in 2013). Those reductions could be an important consideration for lower-income consumers when choosing their coverage.

In Addition To Premium Credits, Health Law Offers Some Consumers Help Paying Deductibles And Co-Pays - Kaiser Health News


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> BluesMistress said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Most of the companies that are available on the federal exchange are sold by small companies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, financially challenged people who didn't have insurance before will still have medical bankruptcies.
> ...



Not true.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




I'd heard a little about that.  Seems it won't help those who buy the cheapest plans.  It's for people who are able to pay extra up front to get the silver plan.  It would definitely be good if the details of this were more widely known.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 9, 2013)

Pelosi was right- Hater dupes will only get this when they're in it...Jeebus what a bunch of fools. TIME IS FAR LEFT NOW LOL...


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 9, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...



What's junk is decided by the money government needs.
Mark my words, plans that are not junk today's standards will be marked as junk as soon government realize they missed their estimates in how much money current plans are bringing or even sooner, when people stop talking about it. And they will keep doing it until we have single payer system.
It was never about insuring uninsured, it was always about money and control.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 9, 2013)

Junk is an annual or lifetime cap duh. Hater dupes think Dems want to screw them and be unpopular lol...That's the GOP GIG, MADE POSSIBLE BY THEIR GREAT CON MEN...


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Junk is an annual or lifetime cap duh. Hater dupes think Dems want to screw them and be unpopular lol...That's the GOP GIG, MADE POSSIBLE BY THEIR GREAT CON MEN...



More neg asshole.

Junk is in the eyes of the buyer.  

Never said anything until your vaunted poster boy for incompetence got his skinny ass caught in the BIG LIE.

You can keep your insurance.  Period.

Laughable.  Lied to the whole nation.  Only lemmings like you are still behind him.

Ring a bell and you start drooling.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



Please show us where fearless asshole said this 100 times.

When we can show dozens of "you can keep your insurance clips".

Otherwise, your claim rests in the sewer with the rest of the bullshyt the left has been putting out there.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> 45 per cent of all bankruptcies are caused by junk policies, and they've never heard of them lol...



More horsecrap from the head moron of the board.

Your vaunted Affirmative Action Moron Incompetent never said anything about any of this until he got his ass handed to him.

Then came the "fix".

It needs a fix alright.  Just like you.


----------



## Listening (Dec 10, 2013)

Listening said:


> In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> 
> *Period.*
> 
> ...



Not one freaking clip.  Can you believe it ?

How does the left allow themselves to be duped by this charlatan ?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2013)

Kosh said:


> [
> 
> The real numbers are that 8 million less votes for Obama than in 2008 and Romney got 1 million less votes than McCain did. Had Romney matched McCain it would have been a close race.
> 
> And of course we have the far left Obama drone talking points in all this.



I don't know what "real numbers" you are talking about, Vorlon-boy. 

Here are the real numbers. 

2008-  

President Elect - 2008

Obama - 69,297,997 
McCain - 59,597,520 

2012 

President Elect - 2012

Obama -  65,446,032 
Romney - 60,589,084 

Romney got a million  more than McCain did... Obama got about 3.7 million less than he did in 2008, mostly from non-battleground states that weren't in contention.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Should be interesting to see how the apologists spin providers being buried in low-reimbursement Medicaid patients, providers not accepting some or all of the insurance and opening concierge practices, much longer waiting times, huge deductibles burying policy owners, hospitals opting out, billing software systems not ready and the lack of "young invincables" throwing the actuarial tables right off the rails.
> 
> ...



Why should they. 

If the Doctors and Insurance companies had their priorities straight, which is to do the best for their patients/customers, this would work just fine. 

Big Pharma and Big Insurance and Big Medical fought like hell to get THIS system instead of the feared "single payer".. and now they are trying to muck this up.  

Because they know, eventually, that's where they are going.  But they'll kick and scream every step of the way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Of course, financially challenged people who didn't have insurance before will still have medical bankruptcies.
> 
> Deductibles which are half of their income?  Yeah, that's not a nightmare waiting to happen.



As someone else pointed out, 75% of those who file medical bankruptcy DID have insurance when the medical crisis arose. 

They just didn't have adequate insurance.  And these are the plans that ObamaCare has put an end to.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, financially challenged people who didn't have insurance before will still have medical bankruptcies.
> ...



You're such an ill informed boob, Joe.  Obamacare makes it worse.  The high deductibles and co pays of Bronze plans, the only ones most people can afford, guarantee there will be MORE medical bankruptcies, not fewer.
If ignorance were gold you'd be a gazillionaire.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Deductables aren't the problem, guy.  

Lifetime caps and pre-existing exemptions were.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Uh no.  Thanks for demonstrating you're unblinking committment to stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2013)

So you have nothing to add to the conversation, as usual.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 10, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Junk is an annual or lifetime cap duh. Hater dupes think Dems want to screw them and be unpopular lol...That's the GOP GIG, MADE POSSIBLE BY THEIR GREAT CON MEN...



O lies and that's all you need to know.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, financially challenged people who didn't have insurance before will still have medical bankruptcies.
> ...



I know what bankruptcy is, but I never heard of "medical bankruptcy".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 10, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yes, but those subsidies only kick in if you already qualify for premium subsidies, which only occurs if your premiums exceed 20% of your income and you don't make more than the cutoff.


----------



## zeke (Dec 10, 2013)

Ame®icano;8275845 said:
			
		

> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Don't get out much? Never heard of someone having to file for bankruptcy because they owed more than they could ever pay for a medical procedure or hospital stay? Never heard those bankruptcies attributed to excessive medical costs called medical bankruptcies?

Interesting. Well you have now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny how every single "medical bankruptcy" lists credit cards as a debt, but that has nothing to do with why they can't pay their bills.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




In my example, the subsidies would almost certainly kick in.  Flopper is responding to where I said deductibles were half of a family's income.  

But they also would only kick in if the family chose the silver plan instead of saying, "we can't afford to pay more than bronze premiums and just hope we don't get sick".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 10, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



There is something else that you have to consider. If they get subsidies, and then get a raise, or a new job, that pays more, they have to pay them back if their income exceeds the level that qualifies them for subsidies. That is going to cause some real outrage when it hits people.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 10, 2013)

I know.  So many disincentives built into ACA.  Sad.


----------



## Listening (Dec 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Average in bankruptcy is less than the cost of mid-sized sedan.

Seems like we let them pull the plug a bit early.


----------



## Listening (Dec 10, 2013)

Did we ever get any clips of someone talking about junk insurance prior to exposing the BIG LIE ?

I can't keep with all the side conversations.


----------



## zeke (Dec 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> ...



Why, I bet you have a bunch or credible sources that show that people filing medical bankruptcies are actually filing on credit card debt.

How they convinced the court I don't know. Unless they filed on ALL their debt. Thanks to the advice of counsel. Now why in the fucking world would they pay attention to that lawyer guy that they are paying a few thousand dollars to file BK? Who said "include your charge card debt."

You wouldn't would you dude. You'd show em. Medical bills ONLY for you. Screw the fact you used cash advances so you could pay some medical costs before you filed BK. That has nothing to do with medical bankruptcy. You know, trying to live when you're so sick you can't work and shit. No, shit like that don't happen in your Republican America now does it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Uh, Zeke dude.  There's no such thing as a "medical bankruptcy."  BK is either Chapter 13 or Chapter 7.


----------



## zeke (Dec 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Uh rabbit dude duh when you start the process of filing your BK, you declare the reason. Medical costs beyond the ability to be paid back is considered fair filing by the court ie medical bankruptcy.

You would argue over the color blue in the sky wouldn't you?

What you mentioned are the two vehicles provided by the court for people about to financially fail. Has nothing to do with the reason they are financially failing. Could be divorce, medical, business failure. etc.

But filing for medical costs are the big one driving bankruptcies. Medical bankruptcy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2013)

Ame®icano;8275845 said:
			
		

> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



That's any bankruptcy where the litigant owes any money to a doctor or hospital, even if it's a minute fraction of his total debt.

That's how the Obama fluffers define it, at any rate.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...


Uh, Zeke baby.  You're talking out of your ass again.
Here is the form for a voluntary bankruptcy petition.  There is no space to declare the reason.  The reason is you can't pay your bills.  That's all of them.
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/BK_Forms_Current/B_001.pdf


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's right next to "Assault Weapon" in the liberal dictionary of why things should be but aren't really.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...




Not saying that medical bankruptcies don't happen but when surveyed, it's natural that many who have declared bankruptcy would say  it was due to their medical bills and gloss over how much they overextended themselves before they got sick.  Saying it was a medical bankruptcy sounds better than saying it was a big-screen-TV and eating-out-a-lot bankruptcy.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 10, 2013)

Now there are going to be Obamacare-payment bankruptcies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



DAYAM!

I love it when some idiot springs an obvious trap.

FYI, I typed "medical bankruptcies" for a reason, there is no such thing as a "medical bankruptcy." I know all the Disciples of Fauxcohantes love the fake study  that shows that medical costs are the main driver of bankruptcy in the US, but that claim does not stand up to analysis, and has been widely debunked.

RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth


----------



## Amelia (Dec 10, 2013)

Wow!  And Bam!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



I really need to go back to school and learn how the new new math works because the math I learned tells me that medical costs are not a major factor in bankruptcy. Less than half of all bankruptcies in the US even list medical costs as a factor, and more than 96% of those have a medical debt of less than $5000.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If they lose their job because of illness or injury, even if the medical costs are all paid in full, it still counts as a medical bankruptcy.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> ...




Forget if they lost their job -- if they just missed work for two weeks due to illness that counted as medical bankruptcy -- even if they had no medical debt.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2013)

Ame®icano;8275845 said:
			
		

> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



I can't be responsible for your willful ignorance.


----------



## Antares (Dec 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No but you are responsible for your own....FIX it!


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2013)

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> ...



I've provided tons of articles on how 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical crisis, and how 75% of those were those plans Obama won't let people keep.   

pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't get rid of the problem.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Ame®icano;8275845 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because you have your hands full with your own willful ignorance.
He is correct.  There is no "medical bankruptcy."  As I demonstrated to the loser Zeke.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 10, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans". It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



I think the idiot rw's should be allowed to pay premium dollar for these plans and then have to live with their stupidity. 

Its not by accident that its the right that hawks this garbage. 

No more than its accidental that R vultures sell "reverse mortgages" to people who don't know any better. 

You're right - the last thing these people want is to educate themselves.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 10, 2013)

Amelia said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Shame on you.

Turn off Rush and Beck and the other hate garbage and open your eyes and mind.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





If they were "tons" it didn't matter if they all traced back to the one flawed study where people were counted as having had medical bankruptcies even if they had no medical debt.  In that study, even people on Medicare or Medicaid would have counted as having medical bankruptcies if they had an illness or injury which caused them to miss two weeks of work.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Um, people bought those "junk" plans, approved by state insurance boards, and renewed them for years in some cases.  And before Obamacare people did pay for them with premium, after tax, dollars.
I hadn't realized every mortgage broker, underwriter and executive was a Republican.

You're not too bright, are you?


----------



## alan1 (Dec 10, 2013)

According to the ACA, this is a Junk Plan.

I want insurance to cover catastrophic events (the entire purpose that insurance was designed for).
I am willing to pay for the first $5K, $7K, $10K, or whatever $K I decide I can afford.  After I meet that amount, I want my insurance to kick in.  I'm not looking for my insurance to pay for maintenance visits (annual physical or maybe I pulled a muscle), no, I want insurance for catastrophic events.   This is a "junk plan", because I am obviously too stupid to determine my own medical needs, my own ability to pay and my own level of insurance need according to the government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




You provided tons of lies? Wow.

he best part is that you admit it.


----------



## oreo (Dec 10, 2013)

alan1 said:


> According to the ACA, this is a Junk Plan.
> 
> I want insurance to cover catastrophic events (the entire purpose that insurance was designed for).
> I am willing to pay for the first $5K, $7K, $10K, or whatever $K I decide I can afford.  After I meet that amount, I want my insurance to kick in.  I'm not looking for my insurance to pay for maintenance visits (annual physical or maybe I pulled a muscle), no, I want insurance for catastrophic events.   This is a "junk plan", because I am obviously too stupid to determine my own medical needs, my own ability to pay and my own level of insurance need according to the government.



That's just it, most of us with catastrophic plans are healthy--we can choose our own deductibles--we know what we can and cannot afford in a deductible.  We choose them to save on monthly premiums.  I don't mind paying for my own prescriptions or co-pays at a doctor's office.

My plan will be cancelled in a year because of the mandates in Obamacare.  I am currently paying $238.00 a month--and am now looking at my premium doubling to $495.00 per month with a 6K deductible under Obamacare.  It's ridiculous.

Here are millions of people--that elected to be responsible and pay for their own medical insurance--and were promised by Obama over 40 times that they could keep the plans they liked and are now loosing the insurance and PREMIUMS they liked--because of Barack Obama.

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:*  to insure the uninsured    * EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:* uninsuring the insured







*Welcome to your hope and change*


----------



## Listening (Dec 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



You mean we can have our insurance back ?

How nice of you.

Now write your f**ked up president and tell him to do the same.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Where did you get 20%?

I ran the Kaiser Calculator for:
For 1 adult, nonsmoker, age 43, 3 kids, family income of $36,000 in Florida.

Results were:

For a Silver Plan 
Premium of $9,059 per year
Subsidy  of  $7,571 per year
Amount of premium to be paid $1,487 per year
Maximum out of pocket $4500/yr.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/


----------



## Flopper (Dec 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > BluesMistress said:
> ...


Insurance Companies listed on the Federal Exchange for Florida:
You call these small companies???
Humana Medical Plan, Inc.                                         4th    largest in the nation 21.7 Billion in premiums            
Florida Blue (BlueCross BlueShield FL)                          17th   largest in the nation  7.4 Billion in premiums   
CoventryOne                                                          13th  largest in the nation 8.1 Billion in premiums    
Aetna                                                                    5th    largest in the nation 21.7 Billion in premiums  
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company                    10th   largest in the nation   9.6 Billion in premiums

Largest US Health Insurance Companies
www.healthcare.gov


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Guy, pretending the problem doesn't exist won't make it go away.  

Fact is, this has been studied.  63% of bankruptcies are caused by medical crisis.  Usually because when the average salary is about $40,000, and cancer treatment costs upwards of $100,000, you are going to go bankrupt pretty quickly.  

Just one month of cancer drugs can cost $10,000 a month.  

The Sky-High Cost of Chemotherapy: Why Do Cancer Drugs Cost So Much?

Which is great if you have insurance.  

Unless of course, you have the bad luck of having a company like Cigna, that decides your cancer treatment isn't covered, like they did with Nataline Sarkisyan.


----------



## MeBelle (Dec 11, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> *I've provided tons of articles on how 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical crisis, *and how 75% of those were those plans Obama won't let people keep.
> 
> pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't get rid of the problem.



*EXCELLENT!!*

Post up the links then.  
TIA


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 11, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > *I've provided tons of articles on how 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical crisis, *and how 75% of those were those plans Obama won't let people keep.
> ...



it is hard to imagine 

that higher priced premiums higher deductibles 

and your current doctors not covered by the plan 

will stop medical bankruptcies


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

This will be post #265 in this thread.

Still no links to anyone in the Affirmative Action Failure's administration talking about "junk" plans.

We've got the links for the 2500 k savings and the you can keep your insurance.

I am starting to think the left can't produce them.

Which would take me back to my original point.

They only subjectively became junk when it was convenient for the skinny-assed liar to call them as such because he had is d**k caught in his policy zipper.

BTW: you should start a thread about medical bankruptcy.  It's obvious this one has achieved it's purpose.....


----------



## Flopper (Dec 11, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this yearmaking health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

Only time will tell to what extent Obamacare will have on these bankruptcies.  For those qualified for subsidies in the individual healthcare market, it should certainly help.  For those not qualified, I don't see any difference.  However, most people get their insurance through an employer.  It really depends on what happens in this market.


Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study


----------



## Amelia (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...





Interesting that you choose an article with a passage like this:



> 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.
> 
> "With an average American family bringing home $50,000 in income, a high medical bill and a high-deductible insurance plan can quickly become something they are unable to pay," LaMontagne said. "If you have an out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000 or $10,000, that's really tough," he said.




Obamacare isn't going to fix that problem -- and might exacerbate it.  And it'll  be doing it to people who actually had their finances in control before the ACA was passed but who are strapped by the new costs.  

Not good.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Got any clips...(see OP) ?


----------



## Vox (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



except only Florida Blue is actually the obamacare company.

All others DO NOT sell their policies through the exchanges.

For Florida residents.


----------



## Vox (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



and it was already pointed out that this particular study is unreliable as it counted people to be "medically bankrupt" which never were.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Gee, that should make everyone feel better, if they ignore the part where the Kaiser calculator is not an official government calculator, and that they are not responsible for any errors, and that the person who actually has to pay if it is wrong is the idiot (Flopper) who thinks it is the be all and end all in the discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Do you know what the word most means?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



That fact is a lie.

RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



My guess is that they will continue at the current rate of not happening at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Stop lying.

RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

Vox said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Don't use facts on him, he still thinks that people love Obamacare now that it has finally kicked in.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 11, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


I have never been very confident that it will solve the medical bankruptcy problem.  No one knows at this point.  

The expanded medicaid will certain eliminate medical bankruptcies at the very low income level because it's free medical care but there are still some states that don't offer it. 

For people purchasing insurance in the individual marketplace with low income levels,  133% to 200% of FPL, it should certainly reduce medical bankruptcies because both the cost of the insurance and out the pocket maximums will be substantially reduced.  Over 200% FPL, I don't think it will have much effect at all and this is where most people in the individual insurance market fall.

Employer sponsor health insurance isn't going to change much.  Companies over 50 employees that don't offer health insurance will be required to do so.  However smaller companies that offer insurance may decide to drop that insurance pushing their employees onto the exchanges.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 11, 2013)

Since we don't seem to disagree all that much on this subject I'll just observe a little technicality:

"The expanded medicaid will certain eliminate medical bankruptcies at the very low income level because it's free medical care but there are still some states that don't offer it."

By the definitions used in the study people cite about 60% of bankruptcies being medical bankruptcies, low income level people can still have medical bankruptcies.  They can have no medical bills at all and still fall into that definition.  If they miss work for two weeks due to illness or injury and then declare bankruptcy, they would be deemed to have a medical bankruptcy.  IIUC.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


The calculation is not that difficult.  The tables are on healthcare.gov.  I could list several other calculators that will give the same results but I'm sure you would make the same claims about them.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


There are only 5 companies listed on the exchange for Florida and they are all large insurance companies. If you take the time to look you will see that's the case in  almost all states.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 11, 2013)

Vox said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Florida Blue is a wholly owned subsidiary of Florida Blue Cross Blue Shield and those listed above are the only companies on the exchange for Florida.  So if you live in Florida and buy through the exchange, you will buy from one of those companies.  Check it out.
www.healthcare.gov


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > In all the debate over Obamadon'tcare, I don't recall much discussion about "Junk Plans".  It was always about "you could keep your insurance if you like it".
> ...



Please show us where this was discussed by Obama or any of his hacks in his campaigning for the horseshyt bill.  Did they provide cut-off points for when a plan became junk ?

I have not seen one clip from anyone who defends our Affirmative Action Failure for a president.  Not one (not saying they don't exist...maybe they do).

That is the point of this thread.

Obama lied his ass off (or are you going to say he told the truth about keeping plans ?) and when his bill came back to bit him on his skinny ass...he all of a sudden started talking junk plans.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Have you read any of the posts in this thread besides your own? The fucking subsides do not work like your taxes, if you make $1 more than the eligibility threshold you lose the subsides, and the IRS comes after you for every penny you got from them toward those subsides. does that calculator you like to point to as the be all and end all of the discussion mention that little detail, or will they wait until the IRS gobsmacks with the bill?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 11, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Does that mean no?

There are 34 states on the federal exchange, Texas alone has over 40 insurers that offer plans through that exchange. Additionally, how many plans are available in Florida depend on where you live in the state. As of August there were 10 different companies that offer plans in various parts of Florida. 

Florida health exchange details released - Orlando Sentinel

I guess that makes you flat out wrong about everything you said in your post, what a surprise.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> [
> 
> That fact is a lie.
> 
> RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth



RealClear is a right wing site.  therefore, anything they say can be pretty much discarded. 

Every study has found the same thing... most bankruptcies involve medical debt. 

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study



> Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this yearmaking health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.
> 
> The findings are from NerdWallet Health, a division of the price-comparison website. It analyzed data from the U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control, the federal court system and the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that promotes access, quality and efficiency in the health-care system.



and another...

60% of US Bankruptcies Due To Medical Bills, While 78% Of Those Bankruptcies HAVE Insurance Coverage | Economy



> 1.5 millions US citizens will declare bankruptcy, and a new study suggests that over 60 percent of those individuals will be brought under due to medical bills. Medical bill bankruptcies increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 on up to 62 percent in 2007. Most filers hailed from the middle class, and were well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine, according to CNN. And, whats more insane, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance.


----------



## Vox (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I LIVE in Florida.

That is why I KNOW.

Florida Blue is the only insurance company which is enrolled in obvamacare.

all others ARE NOT.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


I doubt that there were any public discussions by Obama or Congress in which "junk" insurance was discussed per se.   There have been many discussions about insurance that leaves people severely under-insured which includes junk insurance.   Requiring that health insurance include hospitalization including surgery, drug coverage, emergency services, rehabilitation, etc will eliminate most of the junk insurance but of course not all.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> I doubt that there were any public discussions by Obama or Congress in which "junk" insurance was discussed per se.   There have been many discussions about insurance that leaves people severely under-insured which includes junk insurance.   Requiring that health insurance include hospitalization including surgery, drug coverage, emergency services, rehabilitation, etc will eliminate most of the junk insurance but of course not all.



You udnerstand that every insurance policy sold was first approved by the state commissioner of insurance, right?


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



What those are what they represented were never quantified either.

You could have hospitalization with a massive deductable...would that be junk ?

And not all the plans that didn't qualify were not junk.  

I go back to my OP.

Obama and co. were not as concerened about junk plans as they were concerned about finding something to deflect the fact that AAF was caught in the BIG LIE.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 12, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Typical JoeB post, can't provide facts, attack the source.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 12, 2013)

Back in 2009 and 2010, Obama was against people having to endure 40% jumps in their insurance premiums.  Now he has forced it.

He is a disgusting human being and people defending his hypocrisy can take a flying leap.

Grrrrr ... I'm too angry now ...  I need to go pet my cat.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Vox said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No, that's not correct.  Maybe in the county you live in there's only one carrier listed but that's not true for the state.  If you check http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ chances are you will find only a few companies listed for your county possibly only one plus all companies are not on the exchange.

Click on the line below.  It's from healthcare.gov for the state of Florida, Hillsborough County. On the left-hand side of the screen you will see a listing of all insurance companies listed on the exchange for that county. The number of companies will vary by county.

https://www.healthcare.gov/find-pre...type=med&state=FL&county=Hillsborough&age0=35

For Hillsborough County:
Humana Medical Plan, Inc.
Florida Blue (BlueCross BlueShield FL)
CoventryOne
Florida Blue HMO (a BlueCross BlueShield FL company)
Aetna
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company

For Miami Dade there 9 companies companies on the exchange.  I thought there were only 5 companies in the state that were listed but apparently there are more.

In some rural counties there maybe only one company serving that county.  This happens in most states because the individual health insurance market isn't large enough to support a number of carriers in all counties.


----------



## Vox (Dec 12, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Back in 2009 and 2010, Obama was against people having to endure 40% jumps in their insurance premiums.  Now *he has forced it.*
> 
> He is a disgusting human being and people defending his hypocrisy can take a flying leap.
> 
> Grrrrr ... I'm too angry now ...  I need to go pet my cat.



he has forced 400%-1000% jump - not mere 40%.

he thinks BIG


----------



## Vox (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yes, I am correct.
In most counties there is only Florida blue through exchanges( including 3 counties in my vicinity)

which does not matter for me - I would be an idiot to go through exchange and for now I have employer-sponsored insurance.

in order to know what is there - one has to actually plug in the real person into the healthcare.gov - and there are not even close to the figures you provide.



That does not mean all those companies are not available on the private exchange. IN ANY COUNTY in Florida.

But that is a humongous difference.


----------



## Vox (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



ALL obamacare plans are extreme JUNK, especially the lower costs ones - they do not cover what people need and they have extreme deductibles and co-pays.

the ones which are a little bit better - are simply the road to bankruptcy if somebody is chronically ill and needs expensive medications and procedures.

or just can simply DIE - because the needed medications are NOT COVERED by this crappy junk insurance plans under obamacare.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Hospitalization only would be considered under insured and would not meet the requirements of the law.  I think calling it junk insurance would be a pretty loose use of the term.  Most people consider junk insurance as insurance that pays little or nothing for major medical problems.   A high deductible plan should not be considered either under-insurance or junk insurance unless the the deductible is so high as to make the plan of limited use for most people in paying for a major medical problem.

Junk insurance is advertised on the Internet for less than dollar a day, $49 for a discount card that promises huge discounts, hospitalization plans with caps as low as $2,000.  Some of the plans were just feeders to major insurance companies; that is practically no one qualified for the advertised plan and the company would try to sell you a much more expensive plan offered by major insurance company.


----------



## oreo (Dec 12, 2013)

Vox said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



In Colorado we have 5 on the Obamacare insurance exchange.  Good Luck with your premiums if you only have one!

_The Federal Government at work again!_--

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPzLBSBzPI]Lucy's Famous Chocolate Scene - YouTube[/ame]

*This reminds me of how well Obamacare is working right now-*-


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Thank you.

But that isn't what Obammy did.  

He and his army of pricks basically said anything that did not qualify was junk.  One leftist asshole on a talk show said anyone who bought a plan that didn't qualify was a "sucker".  

It was a diversion to get away from the BIG LIE as told by the BIG LIAR and his army of ALMOST AS BIG LIARS. 

I wonder if Al Franken will add a Chapter to his "book" on this one.  Somehow I doubt it.

I appreciate your candor.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Vox said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Unless you qualify for a subsidy, there's no need to buy off the exchange.  You can buy directly from the insurance companies and generally you will have a wider choice of both plans and insurers.  If your income is low enough, you can quality for not only a big reduction in premium but a reduction in out of pocket cost if you buy through the exchange.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 12, 2013)

Sherry said:


> Ame®icano;8266364 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. 

They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

&#8213; C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


What Obama was aiming at during the early part of his campaign was single payer. Obama said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody."  Once congressmen convinced him that there was no way of getting single payer passed, he settle on a private insurance with added regulations.  Unfortunately, he didn't modify his rhetoric much and continued to stick by his campaign promises.

I don't like Obamacare but unlike you, I consider it better than nothing.


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



He changed his rhetoric...."you can keep your plan if you like it".  

Face it...this Affirmative Action Failure is also a liar.

He has no idea of just how sad he looks to many of us (in terms of being a fish out of water).  I recall watching GWB in debates against Kerry and thinking "This is is the moron I'm going to vote for"....now he looks smart.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




first- except in DC, those "citizens"  must use the Marketplace exchange. 

second- if they do that,  the aca will fail.....not that that matters...why do you think they are cancelling the plans?

_In general, health policies effective Jan. 1, whether sold on the exchanges or off, must comply with the Affordable Care Act. That means they have to offer the same menu of essential benefits, like drug coverage and maternity care, and can&#8217;t deny you coverage if you&#8217;re already sick. And, insurers who sell policies both on and off the exchanges must sell the same plan for the same price. _

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/y...rent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0

third - if a NON grandfathered plan or any new privately purchased plans  includes ANY , even one of the EHB's,( essential health benefits)  they can impose NO annual or life time limits on the dollar values of those benefits...helllllloooo... ...apparently you didn't know that, you know why that and the rule for non-denial of coverage for precondition, is  important and pulls the pin on your offer to buy 'privately' .....right? 


forth-

here from the link-
_
Another possible reason for shopping off the exchanges is if the networks offered by the plans you find there don&#8217;t include your own doctor or hospital, said Sara R. Collins, a health policy expert at the Commonwealth Fund. In some cases, insurers are seeking to control costs by narrowing the networks of plans offered on the exchanges. _


now for extra points; what did Ezekiel Emmanuel say last Sunday about this?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

oreo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


There is some protection against this.  Under the 80/20 rule, if the insurance company spends less than 80 percent of premiums on medical care it must rebate the excess.  Last year insurance companies refunded 1.1 billion dollars.  In most counties where there is only one company listed, there is a very small market for individual insurance.

I counted 9 companies offering over 100 plans in Denver.

http://www.valuepenguin.com/ppaca/exchanges/co


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Trajan said:


> first- except in DC, those "citizens"  must use the Marketplace exchange.
> 
> second- if they do that,  the aca will fail.....not that that matters...why do you think they are cancelling the plans?


No, you don't have to buy individual insurance off the exchange. You can purchase plans from the carrier or their brokers.  However you can only get a subsidy by buying off the exchange.  The only people I'm aware of that must buy off the exchange are congressmen and staff.  All plans must meet ACA requirements unless they have been grandfathered in.  Grandfathered plans are not being marketed in 2014.

There are two reason plans were cancelled.  They did not meet all ACA requirements and the insurer did not want to grandfather the plan because they  could not be marketed in 2014 and it could not be changed, either premium or benefits. 

http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yesterday you said there were only 5 companies selling insurance on the exchange for the entire state of Florida, what happened?


----------



## oreo (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Have you signed up yet and pushed the BUY button?  _If it's better than nothing_--I have to assume you don't have medical insurance?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


As I said in a previous post, I was wrong.  The county I was looking at had 5 insurance companies listed and I assumed that this was for the entire state.  For Hillsobrough County which includes Tampa there are 6.  In Miami, there're 9.


----------



## oreo (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > first- except in DC, those "citizens"  must use the Marketplace exchange.
> ...




No not quite correct.  After OBAMA promised the American public that they could keep their plans if they liked them--we had democrats writing mandates for insurers to follow--to be entered onto the exchange.  Democrats had the opportunity to grandfather the plans in--on a vote in September 2010 and they voted AGAINST it--thereby insuring that all these plans would no longer exist. * IOW--the insurance companies didn't do it--Obama and Democrats did it.*



> Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out. In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obamas promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it. The District of Columbia is an island surrounded by reality.* Only in the District of Columbia could you get away with telling the people if you like what you have you can keep it, and then pass regulations six months later that do just the opposite and figure that people are going to ignore it.*


Flashback: Senate Democrats Killed 'Keep Your Plan' Enforcement Bill in 2010 - Guy Benson


----------



## Amelia (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...





That single-payer quote was from  2003.  During the presidential campaign he had the gall to claim that he never said he was a proponent of single payer.  If the media had treated lies like that from him the way they treated other people, America would be healthier now.


----------



## Vox (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



of course. - for the first bolded.

not true - for the second.


----------



## oreo (Dec 12, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




Well--the media in this country has been in a love affair with Barack Obama.  Many of them continue to be.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 12, 2013)

Vox said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...





If you buy a silver plan it appears to be true.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/cost-sharing-reduction/


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

oreo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


No, I have insurance and I have also had to buy individual insurance for 5 year prior to the ACA.  I have just helped my son in Florida purchase insurance off the Federal exchange and my daughter in Washington off the Washington exchange.  

So many people are criticizing the plans and have no I idea what the market looked like prior to the ACA.  I suppose they're comparing it to their employer sponsored plans which are usually superior in almost all aspects.  In general, premiums are higher in the individual market than they were but the coverage is better.  In rural areas where there isn't much demand for individual plans, there's not much to choose from but these area's have always had little competition.

The ACA in the individual market is a godsend for those with pre-existing conditions, those that are seriously ill and those whose income qualifies them for Expanded Medicaid.  For those whose income is a bit above Medicaid limits, subsidies on the exchanges will cover over 90% of the cost of insurance and will reduce out of pocket maximums.  For those with a little higher income, it will be a wash.  For those that don't qualify for subsidies, their costs will rise, how much depends on their state and county because competition and laws vary considerably between states.


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

Hey,

What happened to our 2,500/year savings ?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Hey,
> 
> What happened to our 2,500/year savings ?


It paid for my kid's insurance who can't seem to earn a decent living. Obama said he could save $2500 but he didn't say for who.


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Hey,
> ...



I'm afraid that is a little weak.  He pretty much indicated he'd "work with our employers" to save us that money.  You know everyone in his camp or who listened to him wasn't thinking (that's for somebody else).

C'mon.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Hey,
> ...





He did.  He said the savings would be for the "typical family".


----------



## Flopper (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


You asked and that's where it went.  My son's subsidy is just about $2500/yr.

"A system where we're gonna work with your employers to lower your premiums *by up *to $2,500 per family per year.
August 6, 2008

He said this over and over in 2008.  However, that was long before any legislation was created.  Also notice that he kept using the phrase "up to".

FREEDOM EDEN: Obama: 20 Promises for $2,500


----------



## Amelia (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...





On at least 3 occasions he did not use the phrase "up to".

No matter what, the promise would imply some savings for "typical families".  Not increases.


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You bet...people heard that "up to", didn't they.

This Affirmative Action Failure has lied and mislead from the start.

The 2,500....

Gonna cut costs.....

Make it more "affordable"

You can keep your doctor.....


----------



## oreo (Dec 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Hey,
> ...



Obama stated for a family of 4 ha.ha.  But you're right that was another lie.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Hey,
> ...




If Obama were a private sector salesman and his speeches were infomercials, he'd already be in a federal prison for consumer fraud with his co-conspirators Kathleen Sibelius and Jay Carney.


----------



## Listening (Dec 13, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Carney would not last in jail.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 13, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > first- except in DC, those "citizens"  must use the Marketplace exchange.
> ...


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2013)

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/413855898692763648

Here is Ezra stating what we all know.

The ObamaTrainWreck is now admitting that this stupid thing is going to cost tons of money.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 20, 2013)

Listening said:


> https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/413855898692763648
> 
> Here is Ezra stating what we all know.
> 
> The ObamaTrainWreck is now admitting that this stupid thing is going to cost tons of money.



Interesting, the law is so bad that it counts as a disaster for everyone hit by it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/413855898692763648
> ...



Klein admitting that Obama has had to sacrifice the individual mandate and will probably wind up getting it killed.


----------



## rdean (Dec 21, 2013)

Republicans caring about health care.


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

rdean said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
> 
> Republicans caring about health care.



Why don't you answer the OP.

You are one of the three biggest morons on the boards and every post you ejaculate shows it.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 21, 2013)

I guess the junk plans became junk the moment they came into existence. It gave the private insurance companies the right to charge uniformed people a fee and then pay them the first $50. on their hospital bill.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 21, 2013)

rdean said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
> 
> Republicans caring about health care.



Do you attempt to be so ridiculously stupid?  Or does it come naturally?


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> I guess the junk plans became junk the moment they came into existence. It gave the private insurance companies the right to charge uniformed people a fee and then pay them the first $50. on their hospital bill.



I'd ask you to really think about how silly that comment is.

In any distribution of products there are always ones that don't do so well.

The administration SUDDENLY decided all plans that were non-compliant were junk plans.  That is simply a lie.

I had two of them for two of my kids and they were fine.

Do want to tell me my plans were "junk" plans ?

Pray tell.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 21, 2013)

Listening said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the junk plans became junk the moment they came into existence. It gave the private insurance companies the right to charge uniformed people a fee and then pay them the first $50. on their hospital bill.
> ...


There doesn't seem to be any commonly accepted definition of a junk insurance plan. I haven't heard Obama use the term junk insurance but there are plenty of political pundits on right and left that use the term to mean different things.

It might be nice to have some common definition of what junk insurance is before discussing it. It seems to me that junk health insurance would be insurance that does not provide substantial coverage for really serious health conditions.  Prior to Obamacare, plans existed that provided only  a few thousand dollars of hospital coverage or had yearly maximum that would not even cover the average hospital stay or had so many exemptions as to make the plans nearly worthless. A plan that does not cover all the essential benefits does not make it junk insurance.  It just doesn't meet the high criteria set forth in the law.


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Nobody on the left ever talked about them before.

When people started loosing plans..that's when they became junk.

While I appreciate your desire to settle the conversation into an actual discussion of junk plans...my OP was pointed at the fact that Obama was telling his BIG LIE and this was the response on the left when he got his tiny little balls caught in a vice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



It amazes me that you see so little, yet know so much.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 21, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Junk health insurance plans have been in and out of the news long before Obamacare came along.  By junk health insurance plans I'm referring to the "min-med" plans with $2,000 maximum hospital benefits, hospitalization policies that have 50% co-insurance, employee group insurance that requires a 70% turnover rate and provides no coverage for 6 to 9 months, etc..  These plans are as bad as no insurance at all because they give the buyers a false sense of security and in some states can prevent the buyer from getting medicaid.

Recently, anything that does not qualify under the ACA is being called junk which is ridiculous.  Most of these plans have good coverage, they just don't meet the exclusion of pre-existing condition, yearly maximum exclusion, or lack a couple of the 10 essentials.


----------



## Antares (Dec 21, 2013)

Junk plan?

$6325 Cat plan.....pure Junk yet Bammy promotes it.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 21, 2013)

Antares said:


> Junk plan?
> 
> $6325 Cat plan.....pure Junk yet Bammy promotes it.


I disagree.  A catastrophic plan with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible is not junk.  If provides what insurance should provide, payment of large healthcare costs that would financially devastate most people.  Secondly, plans with high deductibles encourage people not to go the doctor with minor problems reducing cost for the company as well as your premiums.  Just a few days ago, there was news piece on TV about the new cancer drugs that can prolong life for decades that cost up $100,000/yr.  My brother had triple bypass with 3 trips to the hospital.  The bills were just over $155,000.


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> *Recently, anything that does not qualify under the ACA is being called junk which is ridiculous.  Most of these plans have good coverage*, they just don't meet the exclusion of pre-existing condition, yearly maximum exclusion, or lack a couple of the 10 essentials.



Thank you for your assesment.

Now, why have the Obama pundits needed to strap them as such ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Junk plan?
> ...



I had plans like these for my children.  Deductible was 2,500 (the same amount Obama said he'd save me).

Such plans are now classified as junk (for other reasons...my daughters are single and don't carry maternity).


----------



## Antares (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Junk plan?
> ...



The now outlawed plans were better plans than this...and for the record to date I have written 260 policies since Oct 1....only two Cat plans....because they are shit.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 21, 2013)

Antares said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


Catastrophic plans are not popular.  They never have been.  People expect to be able to use the plan throughout the year to pay routine health care costs even thou they can afford to pay it out of pocket.  Attitudes toward health insurance should be the same as life insurance; you never want to have to use it.  Instead, the attitude of most people with little or no deductible is to use as much healthcare as you like because you're paying for it whether you use it or not.

Deductibles started rising several years ago.   My son has a $2500 this year and my daughter has a $3500 deductible.   JPMorgan Chase, last year narrowed its choice for most employees to two medical plans, one with a $3,000 deductible and another with a $5,000 deductible.  There's no doubt that higher deductibles will reduce utilization and costs but there is a downside; people may refrain from seeking help for potentially serious healthcare problems.  The ACA attempts to counteract this by requiring a number of preventive care benefits that aren't subject to deductible, copay or coinsurance.  IMHO, they didn't go far enough with preventive care.


----------



## Antares (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I agree, however when looking at ACA plans (bronze) one must not look at where one starts splitting with an insurance company....one must look at where their max out of pocket is.

Almost ALL end at 6350....and what this does is allow Ins Companies to charge MORE for you to pay more in Premium.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 21, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


No, I doubt you bought a really junk insurance plan.  I think you're a lot smarter than that.

About 2003, the number of people in the individual healthcare market began rising dramatically as more companies reduced the cost of providing healthcare benefits and then jobs.   Insurance companies jumped into the void with a lot of products Consumer Reports dubbed "junk insurance." These were plans that barely qualified as insurance because they had very low caps on coverage or weren't even really insurance at all. Many were merely medical discount programs that didn't protect against health-related financial calamity. They ran ads that offered insurance for your family for as little as dollar a day.

These products were aggressively marketed and often misleadinglywhich was made easier by the lack of disclosure requirements in the sale of health insurance. Regulators struggled to protect consumers because so many of the junk plans were perfectly legal.  For example, plans that offered up to $100,000 in drug coverage but limited the maximum per day to less than a $1,000 - so no big deal because who needs to buy more than $1,000 in drugs a day.  For one, a person on chemotherapy.  Landmines like these were buried in these cheap insurance plans waiting to blowup in customers face at the worst possible time, when a health disaster strikes.    

The vast majority of plans that were cancelled were not junk insurance. They simply lacked some of the required benefits.  Junk plans have been disappearing from the market since the ACA passed and most will be illegal on Jan 1.

The Real Story Behind the Phony Canceled Health Insurance Scandal | Mother Jones


----------



## Antares (Dec 21, 2013)

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
 Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 21, 2013)

Antares said:


> God please.
> Mother Jones?
> 
> Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.
> ...


The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now.  You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > God please.
> ...



Total bullshit Obama-flack article.  Maternity coverage covers mothers and babies, not father.  The main argument is: Maternity care is expensive so we need to spread the risk, even to people who will never ever use it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > God please.
> ...



I don't find that argument, at all, compelling.

If you don't want women to pay a disproportionate share of materinity costs...then give them a tax credit for their actual costs.

Secondly, if you really want to get serious about making men pay, then everytime a single mother shows up at the county clinic looking for free pre-natal care, she should be required to identify the father so his ass can be back charged some painful amount for gettiing her pregnant.  And he's gonna pay child support too.  The state may supplement, but only after the needle has extracted a lot of blood from him.  And maybe you should go after his parents.  Not fair.....?  What's fair about us paying for the fact that he's screwing around and walking Scott free ?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 21, 2013)

I don't object to the idea that society should invest in good maternal health.

I do object to Obama lying about how much this was going to cost, in addition to the other lies told to get his party on board with the misbegotten legislation.

If you really believe it's such a good thing, then make the case for it honestly.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 21, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


Of course it covers mothers, babies and not fathers and yes the primary purpose is to spread the cost even to people that will never use it. Obviously one of goals of the ACA is  to improve the nations healthcare and the lack of prenatal and maternity healthcare is a  problem.

It's surprising that conservatives with all the pro-iifers would be attacking the one part of the law that can make having a child less expensive than having an abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Do you really think everyone is as stupid as Obama?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > God please.
> ...



You should have said rationalization, because not a single person as actually provided a reason.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Don't let them get away with the lies, their share is not disproportionate. A disproportionate share occurs when someone pays more for getting less, they pay more for maternity coverage because they use all of it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The only lack of prenatal and maternity care comes form people not accessing it. Making people pay more is not going to fix that.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And yet fathers pay for it.  WHo pays for insurance coverage they will never ever need?  It is a gross misuse and misunderstanding of insurance.


----------



## Antares (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > God please.
> ...



I don't need you to explain anything Flop, it is stupid and it is premium gouging by forcing people to buy shit they don't need.
I get it ,you've bought the Admin bullshit.


----------



## Listening (Dec 22, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That I understand.  However, children are an important part of our society and they need a comprehensive safety net.  What that also includes in making fathers responsible.


----------



## Listening (Dec 22, 2013)

rdean said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
> 
> Republicans caring about health care.



Please prove it was Republicans yelling that.

Moron.


----------



## Listening (Dec 22, 2013)

Folks,

It is very interesting in scrolling back through the pages of this thread that there is very little from the left.  They don't seem to have the appetite for defending the BIG LIE that Obama told (and has killed his trustworthiness polling).

I think we all know the answer to the OP.

I just wanted to see if the left had the balls to step up and say stupid stuff like our favorite moron (former Speaker Of The House).

Even after BIG LIAR admits it.....

Nancy Pelosi struggles to defend Obamacare on Meet The Press


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 22, 2013)

Listening said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I can live with that. What I object to is forcing unmarried men who are not engaging in sex and women past childbearing age to pay for other people's actions. I also find it offensive when idiots claim that women of child bearing age pay a disproportionate share of the costs of maternity care. If  anyone is paying a disproportionate share of maternity care it is the people who don't use it, but still have to pay for it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 22, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



When it comes to preventative care and maternity care, I think we need a conversation apart from the current one.

We are in this together.  However, it is the constant scamming (and it's reached the point where it is so blatant...we just accept it) of the system that is so irritating.

I am the one who posted the OP because our Affirmative Action Moron in Charge Failure lied his ass off and now we are stuck trying to undo his fucked up mess.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 22, 2013)

Listening said:


> Folks,
> 
> It is very interesting in scrolling back through the pages of this thread that there is very little from the left.  They don't seem to have the appetite for defending the BIG LIE that Obama told (and has killed his trustworthiness polling).
> 
> ...


I think most people, including myself, are getting pretty bored with responding to post that call Obama a liar. He made promises he wasn't able to keep as do all presidents.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Folks,
> ...



I have a suggestion; if you are tired of defending Obama's lies, stop.


----------



## Antares (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Folks,
> ...



He lied his ass off and you enablers choose to excuse it, we don't. Now he is violating his own law and the Constitution and once again you don't give a shit.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 22, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


The cost of adding a maternity insurance rider to an individual insurance plan is very high.  As an example, in Florida, Blue Cross Blue Shield charges $280/mo. with a $1500 deductible and 50% co-insurance.  Coverage must begin 30 days prior to conception.  In most states there are counties that you can not buy maternity coverage because 62% of the insurance companies in the individual insurance market don't offer it.

Requiring that everyone have the coverage brings down the premium, but is it fair?  Of course not.  Maternity Coverage, Substance Abuse, and various preventive services are not needed by everyone, yet everyone pays. If you are male, you're paying for  mammograms and pap smears.  If you're female, you're paying for PSA tests.  The ACA is not about equitable distribution of cost based on usage.  It's about universal healthcare coverage, improving the health of the nation, and reducing overall cost.

This is why Obamacare is canceling some people?s insurance plans

BCBS Maternity Rider


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



In other words it's socialism.  Yeah, we got that.
They would be at least more transparent simply raising everyone's taxes and offering "free" maternity.
Maternity coverage is expensive because about 85% of policies where it is chosen experience claims.  But at least we can discard the bullshit notion that ACA was about lowering costs for everyone and bending the cost curve down.  It does no such thing.  The very opposite.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 22, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Yes, it is socialist but not as much so as the welfare programs. The law regulates the health insurance industry instead of replacing it with single payer, which was the original plan.  Obama dropped single payer in order to get support from Republicans and less liberal Democrats, a big mistake.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Obama didnt do jack shit.  The Democrats in Congress understood it wouldnt pass.  Even they couldn't swallow that crap.
Thanks for admitting it is socialism, not insurance.  The whole fucking program was a lie foisted on people expecting a free lunch.  Fuck the Dems in 2014.  Repeal Obamacare.  Impeach Obama.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I love it when you pull numbers out of your ass and expect people to simply accept them. It reminds me of the time you said that there were only 4 companies selling insurance for the entire state of Florida under Obamacare.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The industry was regulated.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 22, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


The numbers are in the links and it was 5 not 4 which I corrected.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 22, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


And now there are more regulations, not as good as single payer but it will have to do for now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



There are at least 10 companies that are supplying insurance in Florida through the exchange. I provided the link for that, and you were wrong.

The numbers are not in the links unless you think a forum post is proof of a stupid claim. The interesting thing is that a just 8 posts down there is a post that directly contradicts the numbers you have declared to be true, did you not read that far?



> Well I have seen all the replies and as a Florida Blue agent, yes we  ceased selling the maternity rider on July 1. YAgent's scenario is your  best bet. The agent that quoted you the price for that particular plan  was way way off in the premium if you could have purchased it, doesn't  cost that much for that particular plan. No you cannot add it to your  plan Jan 1, 2014, you will have to purchase one of the new plans being  offered starting Oct 1, to have maternity coverage in which case if you  are above 400% of poverty level will be shell shocked at the premiums.  As YA said if you're on a Grandfathered plan, save your money and when  you get pregnant go to your doc and hospital and make a deal for a 50%  discount to pay off before delivery and yes if you have a complication  your present policy will pay that portion of the bill.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 22, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



What makes single payer good?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 22, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


If the post in the link I gave you isn't proof of the claim because it's own a forum, then the post you quote on that forum doesn't refute it.

Anyway,  here's one in Texas with a premium of $106/mo but only covers $2500 while the average cost is $10,000
Self Employed Maternity Insurance Options in TX (Austin: obgyn, health insurance) - City-Data Forum


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's more government.  We can't trust evil corporations because they're in it for the money.  We can trust government because their motives are pure as driven snow.
This is the essence of the liberal creed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



More along the lines of, we can trust government because they want to get re-elected. Therefore, providing good patient care is their first priority. 

We can't trust insurance companies because their first priority is to the stockholders, their second priority is to the employers actually paying for their plans, and then MAYBE providing good patient care is a third priority. 

Which is why you get situations where the CEO of Cigna pays himself an 83,000,000 severance package but he denies a teenage girl's liver transplant.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



When is Sibelius up for re-election?  Holder?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2013)

Count on Rabbi for a stupid non-sequitor when he can't make an argument. 

Again- the government wants something from me.  My vote.  In fact, they will compete to get my vote when they figure they can't fool me by waving a bible or a flag in front of me. 

Insurance company. Meh.  They already have my money.  The idea is not to give it back.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Count on Rabbi for a stupid non-sequitor when he can't make an argument.
> 
> Again- the government wants something from me.  My vote.  In fact, they will compete to get my vote when they figure they can't fool me by waving a bible or a flag in front of me.
> 
> Insurance company. Meh.  They already have my money.  The idea is not to give it back.



Can't quite wrap your mind around the idea that bureaucracy is unelected and unaccountable, eh Joe?  If I dont like the way a company does business, I go to their competitor.  WHere do I go when I dont like government?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Count on Rabbi for a stupid non-sequitor when he can't make an argument.
> ...



YOu vote in the other party or someone who can get the job done. 

But here's the thing. YOu really CAN'T go to their competitor.  

This is what you guys don't get.   Besides the fact they won't take you with a pre-existing condition, the fact is , you didn't pick this company, your employer did in most cases, and they could care less if you live or die.  

I mean, I can go to my boss and ask why our insurance sucks so badly, but it's not like he's going to change it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



That's because your boss thinks you're a whiner.
So you admit that bureaucrats are not elected, and therefore not accountable.  You throw the pre-existing conditions thing out, even though most people dont have them and in any case ACA forbid that as a factor.  So you are left with whining about company policies.
Pretty darn pathetic, Joe.  Even for you


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> That's because your boss thinks you're a whiner.
> So you admit that bureaucrats are not elected, and therefore not accountable.  You throw the pre-existing conditions thing out, even though most people dont have them and in any case ACA forbid that as a factor.  So you are left with whining about company policies.
> Pretty darn pathetic, Joe.  Even for you



So you are admitting the ACA does some good?  

No, the bureaucrats report to elected officials, so I'm not worried about them.  Usually I've found a call to a Congressman's office usually gets a bureaucrat off his ass pretty quickly. 

Insurance companies?  Fuck it, let them die.  We've got their money.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > That's because your boss thinks you're a whiner.
> ...



No, I actually oppose the pre-existing conditions mandate.  But that is how it is.
I shouldnt need to call my congressman to get something done.  That's a patronage system worthy of corrupt dictatorships.
Who is this "we" who has the insurance companies' money?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 23, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Another forum, how wonderful. Maybe you should stop reading forums like they are the be all and end all for your arguments until after you read past the first post. 

Second post in your link.


> Here's where you can purchase the best maternity insurance plans (in Texas anyway):  www.instexas.com
> 
> Choices are slim for those who don't have group insurance at work.  We  found a plan with unlimited maternity insurance coverage for my wife.   Our cost was $53 monthly for the maternity insurance (plus the cost of  regular health insurance coverage to go with the maternity coverage). I  am self-employed and group insurance was not an option (in my  situation).
> 
> Perhaps this will help others.  We searched & searched.  This was  the best deal we found.  Most of the websites we found were worthless.   Most of the agents who called us (constantly) could not offer any  maternity coverage.  This coverage will pay 100% of our maternity costs,  with a 30 day wait before conception can occur, and after a $5000  deductible.  Considering the cost of hospitalizations, we considered  this deductible to be OK.  We paid over $15,000 for a 2-day  hospitalization recently.



The point, idiot, was that your own link refutes your claim. You made the claim, it is up to you to back it up. So far They seem about as reliable as your insistence that you personally counted every insurer that does business in Florida. In other words, they are  total bullshit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I can prove that they care a hell of a lot less about getting reelected than you do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm sure you can prove a lot of things when your meds kick in. 

Like yesterday when you tried to claim that the murder rate in chicago was four times what it actually was.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 23, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure you can prove a lot of things when your meds kick in.
> 
> Like yesterday when you tried to claim that the murder rate in chicago was four times what it actually was.



All those politicians in Utah were sure worried about reelection, weren't they?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/331226-what-is-in-a-name.html#post8345760


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you can prove a lot of things when your meds kick in.
> ...



Okay, that's a horrible law. 

Not sure what it has to do with health care plans.


----------



## Listening (Dec 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Oh, I can see the connection.

You know...back when people were saying that the government could not do health care right.

The left said quit whinning and get in line.

And then Obama proved them right.

A real connection in terms of just what kind of crap is going to go on.

How many IRS agents have been shot in the last five years ?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually, no.  

We know government can do health care just fine because that's how the rest of the world does it.  And government already does it for people the private sector wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## Listening (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I said do it RIGHT.

And no, the rest of the world does not always do it RIGHT.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs]Krugman gets p3wned on Canadian Health Care - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Amelia (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





Hospital delays are killing America's war veterans - CNN.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2013)

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



People in countries with Single Payer- 

Live Longer
Have a lower infant mortality rate
Spend less per person
Have fewer folks going bankrupt because of medical crisis.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



If you believe that shit, feel free to move to one. Personally, I think the belief  that crossing an imaginary line will change how long you live is almost as stupid as believing that the moon is made out of green cheese.


----------



## Listening (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Please, let's not repeat the same bullcrap.

I'll just go the first.

The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy - Forbes

Its one of the most oft-repeated justifications for socialized medicine: Americans spend more money than other developed countries on health care, but dont live as long. If we would just hop on the European health-care bandwagon, wed live longer and healthier lives. *The only problem is its not true.*

**************************************

Another point worth making is that people die for other reasons than health. For example, people die because of car accidents and violent crime. A few years back, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa asked the obvious question: what happens if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place toyou guessed itfirst. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth.

**************************************

So.....horsecrap.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



If you take your meds, your imaginary friends will stop talking to you.  Just like the doctor said they would...

But anyway, "imaginary lines" or not, the reality is that other countries have sensible policies.  


They make sure everyone is covered, regardless of their ability to pay.  They treat health care as a public service and not a consumer commodity you only get if you can afford it. 

Hence, they live longer on average because you don't have them poor people dying young and bringing the average down.  

Now, if you belong to the Ron Paul "Let them Die" philosophy, I guess this is horrible.  

Most decent human beings consider this a good thing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Listening said:


> [
> 
> Please, let's not repeat the same bullcrap.
> 
> ...



Gee, the magazine written for rich jagoffs doesn't see health inequality as a problem.  Why am I not surprised.  

The U.S. ranks 26th for life expectancy, right behind Slovenia

Not anymore: A new report out this morning from the OECD shows that the United States' average lifespan has fallen one year behind the international average, lower than Canada and Germany, more akin to the Czech Republic and Poland.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Other countries calculate infant mortality differently than we do

as for spending less on health care maybe but the have to spend more for everything else.  For example a bottle of Jameson's cost more in Ireland where it is made than it does in the US.  Why Taxes to cover socialized medicine. GAs costs $13 a gallon.  Why Taxes to cover socialized medicine.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Yup, the whole world is counting infant mortality differently to make us look bad.  Really. I know you guys need to believe that.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Yup, the whole world is counting infant mortality differently to make us look bad.  Really. I know you guys need to believe that.



It's true.  Look it up dipshit.

PJ Media » The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage



> According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
> 
> But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies  considered unsalvageable outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive  is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 1, 2014)

How nice, pea brains are having a convention...


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 1, 2014)

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Let's see, should we believe doctors or Avik Roy who served as an analyst and portfolio manager at J.P. Morgan, Bain Capital, and other firms?

American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, the whole world is counting infant mortality differently to make us look bad.  Really. I know you guys need to believe that.
> ...




500 Grams is less than a pound.... so few babies are born alive that small that it's an insignifigant statistic.  

It should also be pointed out our Infant Mortality statistics are higher than just those three countries.   We are higher than EVERYONE in the industrialized world. 

Hey, dumbfuck, this isn't hard to figure out.  When 1 out of 4 Americans has no insurance or shit insurance, you are going to get really bad results.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Prove it. with some hard numbers then

We call every birth a live birth some countries don't even count a child as living for days after birth.

It ain't rocket science to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



I am comparing apples to apples.   Even our own government admits our infant mortality rates is higher than other nations.  

This really isn't complicated.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jan 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> How nice, pea brains are having a convention...



 Good one.       This board is filled with conservatives crying out  "Tread on me" not "Don't tread on me".


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 1, 2014)

ONLY 60% of bankruptcies were comprised of medical bills. Fantastic system there


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



If we tally the numbers using different criteria, which we do, it matters.

If I count a sale as someone merely visiting my web site like healthcare.gov does and I compare that to a company that only counts a visit as a sale when payment is received don't you think the comparison is not kosher because we are not comparing like items?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Sorry, man, dead babies are dead babies. 

And we have more of them than other industrialized countries.  I'm just so sorry.


----------



## BobPlumb (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, dead babies are dead babies.
> 
> And we have more of them than other industrialized countries.  I'm just so sorry.



Tell that to the proabortion people!


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, dead babies are dead babies.
> 
> And we have more of them than other industrialized countries.  I'm just so sorry.



Not if some countries don't count a baby as a baby we don't.

And btw some countries don't count all births as live births or even a baby as a person in the first few days of life.

any idiot should be able to see that it matters how you count not just what you count.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, man, dead babies are dead babies.
> ...



Gee, which sounds more logical to you. 

that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY is counting infant mortality differently just to make us look bad because they hate Americans. 

Or. 

That because 1 out of 4 Americans doesn't have adequate access to the health care system, pre-natal and post-natal care is inferior enough to bump the numbers up.  

This is really kind of simple, even for a simpleton like you.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Where did I say every other country?

There are differences in categorization which I have shown you you refuse to believe it.

That's your problem if you can't even see that you're not comparing apples to apples.

 Hey let's just add in puppy deaths too after all it doesn't mater if we compare apples to Airedales right?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> [
> 
> Where did I say every other country?
> 
> ...



The Categorization you place- fetuses weighing 500 KG - is such a rare event to be statistically insignifigant.  

One out of four Americans having inadequate health coverage is VERY signifigant, and EVERY other advanced country and a few non-advanced ones beat us in the Infant Mortality stat.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



That is merely one example of the differences. here is another from the same link I provided earlier



> Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as stillborn if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.
> 
> Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.



And show the numbers that it is insignificant.  Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Do you really believe that people in the UK have adequate health coverage under NHS?


----------



## Antares (Jan 1, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



He does, but then Joe has NEVER been very bright.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> [
> 
> And show the numbers that it is insignificant.  Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.



I'm sorry, it's like fucking arguing the sky is blue.  

The problem with you conservatards is that the vast majority of you are just wedded to dogma and ignore science.  EVERY study that has looked at this thing comes to the same conclusion. 

That for the country that spends the MOST out of all countries in the world, we have pretty shitty results. 

U.S. has highest first-day infant mortality out of industrialized world, group reports - CBS News



> Because of their high infant mortality rates, the U.S. only ranked number 30 this year on the report, down five spots from the 2012 report. Save the Children CEO Carolyn Miles told CBSNews.com she was shocked to find that out that the U.S. did so poorly.
> 
> "We do not do as well on many of those as the Scandinavian countries," Miles admitted.
> 
> The 2013 edition focused on newborn mortality rates on the first day. The report's authors stated that the first 24 hours of a child's life are the riskiest.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Antares said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The British believe it...  The NHS remains very popular and something they are quite proud of.


----------



## Antares (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Perhaps, but they its "free" too.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

and that's a bad thing, why? 

I think that's really the essense of this argument, isn't it.  

Should health care be a "right" that everyone should have access to, 


or

Is it a consumer commodity, and if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it?  

Most of the world decided it is the former.  

We for some reason cling to the notion that it should be the latter- that we should let a poor child die of a treatable disease because she will never produce enough profit in her entire life to pay it back.


----------



## Antares (Jan 1, 2014)

It isn't free....tell you what...pitch Single Payor honestly and tell everyone about that 50% tax rate....let's see how it flies Joe.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2014)

Antares said:


> It isn't free....tell you what...pitch Single Payor honestly and tell everyone about that 50% tax rate....let's see how it flies Joe.



It wouldn't need to be anywhere NEAR a 50% tax rate. 

This is kind of what you guys don't get.  We ALREADY spend more than any other country in the world for those bad results I keep talking about.  

BUt because we have all these greedy little groups with their hands out- Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc...  we spend more and get worse results.  

We already spend 17% of our GDP on health care.  By comparison, Japan spends 8% of it's GDP.  

The Japanese cover everyone, they live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate, and so on.


----------



## Antares (Jan 1, 2014)

* Japan50% (40% national + 10% local)  *

*Israel 52% *

* Norway47.8%  *

* United Kingdom  45%  *

List of countries by tax rates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are dismissed


----------



## Antares (Jan 1, 2014)

* Canada 54.75% (federal + provincial)
 15%-29% (federal) + 5%-25.75% (provincial)[45][ *


----------



## Antares (Jan 1, 2014)

* Cuba  50% *

Say uncle.


----------



## Antares (Jan 1, 2014)

Junk plans?

Anything below Silver is a junk plan.


----------



## Listening (Jan 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Now you are spinning.  The reasons were listed.

One clear reason is the fact that we tend to shoot each other.  Take that out of the equation and guess what ?

You missed that ?

Or are you just being dishonest ?


----------



## Listening (Jan 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Completely ignores causation.

Typical.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 2, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ONLY 60% of bankruptcies were comprised of medical bills. Fantastic system there



And were the medical bills the primary cause or merely one of the debts listed?


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The US counts every birth as a live birth.

Many countries call infant death in the first 24 hours still born even if it had a heartbeat.

40% of all infant death occurs in the first 24 hours of life.

That one difference right there will have the US infant mortality rate 40% higher than many other countries.

So stop being such an idiot and admit that there are differences between the methods of different countries.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2014)

Antares said:


> * Japan50% (40% national + 10% local)  *
> 
> *Israel 52% *
> 
> ...



yeah, so?   

If you add up what Americans pay in taxes PLUS what Americans are paying for health care through private plans... you get pretty close to the 50% level as well. 

Of course, the Zionist entity doesn't have a 52% tax rate because they provide health care. 

They have a 52% tax rate because they are an armed camp surrounded by people who don't want them there and are ready to murder them at a moment's notice.  

Also, what you listed is the MAX tax rate- the rate paid by the richest people.  

That same chart lists the United States as 55.9% as the max for the wealthy if you count state and local.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> [
> 
> The US counts every birth as a live birth.
> 
> ...



You can keep repeating the mantra, doesn't make it true. 

Reality- we have infant mortality rate of a third world country because a large portion of our population has third world health care.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2014)

Listening said:


> [
> 
> Now you are spinning.  The reasons were listed.
> 
> ...



Did you just advocate gun control, Mormon Boy?  

No, we have a lower life expectency because 1 out of 4 Americans don't have access to health care. 

Period.  

It's really not fucking complicated.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I have linked to sources that say it's true.

If some countries count all infant deaths in the first 24 hours as still birth of course they will have a lower infant mortality rate.

even a fucking moron like you should be able to see that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2014)

you linked to sources that are shit, and I ignored them. 

I am always amazed that people who will never be rich spout the rich's talking point so gleefully...


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> you linked to sources that are shit, and I ignored them.
> 
> I am always amazed that people who will never be rich spout the rich's talking point so gleefully...



This has nothing to do with rich or poor you twit.

It has to do with statistics and comparing apples to apples.


----------



## Listening (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Denying the facts won't make you live less longer.....

But we can still hope.


----------



## Listening (Jan 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



ROTFLMAO....

I used to actually pay attention to your posts.

Not any more.

This is too too too funny.


----------



## Listening (Jun 14, 2014)

A well written article that says Kathleen Sebelius and can shove the ACA up her oversized ass.

?Junk? Health Plans and Other Obamacare Insurance Myths

Myth: Before Obamacare, there were routine plan cancelations in the individual market.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2014)

Listening said:


> A well written article that says Kathleen Sebelius and can shove the ACA up her oversized ass.
> 
> ?Junk? Health Plans and Other Obamacare Insurance Myths
> 
> Myth: Before Obamacare, there were routine plan cancelations in the individual market.



Um, yeah, guy. 

Last company I worked for fired at least eight people when they had serious medical issues, including myself, to keep health costs down.  

The thing was, the Private Insurance Companies are the biggest theives out there with their 9 figure CEO salaries.   And you wingnuts insisted on keeping them in the loop.  

And when they turned around and screwed the consumer, you acted all surprised.


----------



## Antares (Jun 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> you linked to sources that are shit, and I ignored them.
> 
> I am always amazed that people who will never be rich spout the rich's talking point so gleefully...



How nice for you,to be the sole arbiter of what sources count and what sources don't.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 15, 2014)

Listening said:


> A well written article that says Kathleen Sebelius and can shove the ACA up her oversized ass.
> 
> ?Junk? Health Plans and Other Obamacare Insurance Myths
> 
> Myth: Before Obamacare, there were routine plan cancelations in the individual market.


Interesting coming from Heritage, who was for the mandate before Obama.

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes


----------



## Antares (Jun 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > A well written article that says Kathleen Sebelius and can shove the ACA up her oversized ass.
> ...



Then you chose to work for a shit company and like a 12 year old looked to blame someone else...in this case an insurance company.
Pick your employers more wisely Joey.


----------



## Rozman (Jun 15, 2014)

Obama makes used car salespeople look good compared to him.


----------



## Listening (Jun 15, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > A well written article that says Kathleen Sebelius and can shove the ACA up her oversized ass.
> ...



What ?

Heritage (or someone at Heritage) brings up the idea of a individual mandate (does not mean it is GOP dogma).

And that disqualifies them from pointing out the lies of the Obama administration ?

Do you let Al Sharpton do all your thinking for you ?


----------



## Listening (Jun 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > A well written article that says Kathleen Sebelius and can shove the ACA up her oversized ass.
> ...



On that point you've been repeatedly shown to be wrong.

I am not interested in 9 figure CEO running health care systems.  But big business and government are no longer differentiated.

It is government that has allowed this to go on.

If insurance were less regulated, there would not be the lack of competition in the marketplace.  

Of course, we'd all have to be good consumers and that scares the left to death.

They just want it handed to them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 15, 2014)

A few things in Obama's Defense:

1. Booooooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!

2. You didn't understand the context!!

3. Racist!!!


----------

