# Thanks Obamacare!



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums

Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

So glad you like the taste of  your free lunch.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> So glad you like the taste of  your free lunch.




Affordable Healthcare coverage makes quite a lunch


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 2, 2011)

Same here RW , my son is also going back on my insurance at 22.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> 
> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



I am so happy for your 23 year old son who gets to remain dependent on mommy and daddy for another 3 years, before his entitlement ends and he has to pay his own way in life.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> ...



Me too! Shame on the Democrats for delaying your sons' inevitable toss to the wolfpack for another 3 years.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> 
> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



How is it saving you money? Looks like it would cost you less with one less person that you have to pay for. Damn why can't people grow up when they become an adult instead of sucking off mommy and daddy?


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

My gawd, can you believe people actually crow about living off the backs of others via the Federal Guberment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> My gawd, can you believe people actually crow about living off the backs of others via the Federal Guberment.



It's the new way to control.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> ...



Unfortunately, more and more employers no longer offer health insurance. He works as a welder for a small company and was thrown to the wolves when he had to get a personal health insurance plan.

For young people, finding a job is hard enough
Finding one with full benefits is nearly impossible


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> My gawd, can you believe people actually crow about living off the backs of others via the Federal Guberment.



Isn't it great when government does things to help working people rather than just for the super wealthy?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I wouldn't think about living off my parents, shame on your adult son for allowing this.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

Back in a time, 23 you were living and making it on your own.

What the hell happened? We've raised a generation of Wusses


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Back in a time, 23 you were living and making it on your own.
> 
> What the hell happened? We've raised a generation of Wusses



Wusses? I call them fucking pussies. And you can quote me on it.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Back in a time, 23 you were living and making it on your own.
> 
> What the hell happened? We've raised a generation of Wusses



How bout a generation in absentia of good jobs, fuckwit?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AquaAthena said:
> ...



Welcoming my son back to the umbrella of family health insurance

If insurance companies did not screw those who are self employed or those who work for small companies, it would not be necessary

Thanks Obamacare......  Looking out for the working people of America


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 2, 2011)

"*Unfortunately, more and more employers no longer offer health insurance. He works as a welder for a small company and was thrown to the wolves when he had to get a personal health insurance plan."*

Had it not have been for ObamaCare, those companies that offered health insurance would not have had to drop or reduce their health insurance plans or premiums. O. is running the health insurance companies out of business so everyone can be on Medicaid  and the progressive party has more power and control. Your son could have been left to his own initiative and resources to figure out the results of the madness, not turn back to mommy and daddy.  You do him a disservice by allowing him to become dependent on you again. You forestall his journey into maturity and responsibility, by _bailing him out. _ The easy way does not an accountable person make??


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > So glad you like the taste of  your free lunch.
> ...


Nothing like a proud and satisfied moocher.

Why not just drop out altogether and go on Medicaid, food stamps, general assistance, etcetera, and be done with it?


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Back in a time, 23 you were living and making it on your own.
> ...


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




I win.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Back in a time, 23 you were living and making it on your own.
> ...


I guess they could all go get good jobs as federal bureaucrats.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



you win what?

you couldn't of PAYED me at 23 to go back and SUCK off my parents. but I guess the times have changed.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Glad to have a government that looks out for working americans!

To the conservatives,

Spending $2 Trillion on overseas wars is......PATRIOTISM
Spending $2 Trillion to help the American people is......SOCIALISM


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> "*Unfortunately, more and more employers no longer offer health insurance. He works as a welder for a small company and was thrown to the wolves when he had to get a personal health insurance plan."*
> 
> Had it not have been for ObamaCare, those companies that offered health insurance would not have had to drop or reduce their health insurance plans or premiums. O. is running the health insurance companies out of business so everyone can be on Medicaid  and the progressive party has more power and control. Your son could have been left to his own initiative and resources to figure out the results of the madness, not turn back to mommy and daddy.  You do him a disservice by allowing him to become dependent on you again. You forestall his journey into maturity and responsibility, by _bailing him out. _ The easy way does not an accountable person make??



My company is thinking of dropping it's healthcare coverage. Am I concerned? No I will take care of myself.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums



is your plan through your employer or a personal policy? 



> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



yes,  all 8,000 of them and the prgm has said it needs more money? above the 5 bill. allotted till 2014? wonderful.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> 
> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



Good! What's funny is that in the real world, this is one of the provisions with the very broadest bipartisan support. Helps to put in perspective that the extremists who dominate this board are very much the minority out in the world.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


So, as long as it's _*your*_ hand in your neighbor's pocket, everything is just jake.

Well, at least you're an honest parasite.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





> Glad to have a government that looks out for working americans!



Last time I checked the working American doesn't need nor does it want Medicaid, food stamps, general assistance. Only moochers do.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> "*Unfortunately, more and more employers no longer offer health insurance. He works as a welder for a small company and was thrown to the wolves when he had to get a personal health insurance plan."*
> 
> Had it not have been for ObamaCare, those companies that offered health insurance would not have had to drop or reduce their health insurance plans or premiums. O. is running the health insurance companies out of business so everyone can be on Medicaid  and the progressive party has more power and control. Your son could have been left to his own initiative and resources to figure out the results of the madness, not turn back to mommy and daddy.  You do him a disservice by allowing him to become dependent on you again. You forestall his journey into maturity and responsibility, by _bailing him out. _ The easy way does not an accountable person make??



If the Conservatives did not kill the Public Option ....none of this would be necessary

Working Americans would have had a choice of insurance plans at affordable rates and would not have to go back on their parents plans.

There is still time to bring back the Public Option


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



1, being on your parents policy doesn't constitute sucking off them.  Whether they pay for it or not does, regardless of whether you're on their policy or your own.

2, don't know how old you are, but I can venture a guess that the job market wasn't as shitty as it is now.  But fuck'em, right?  That's FREEDOM... Let the dollar votes determine the direction of the country, and the chips fall where they may.  If that means otherwise good people can't find a job, tough shit.

Right?  So sick of radical progressive Marxists giving a fuck about the little people.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > "*Unfortunately, more and more employers no longer offer health insurance. He works as a welder for a small company and was thrown to the wolves when he had to get a personal health insurance plan."*
> ...



 You will "man up" not _*whine *down_.... Then in `12 we will get the country back on track by encouraging businesses to remain in business, and offer employees compensations and benefits they can afford, rather than having to close their doors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> ...



We have a word for people like you
MOOCHER.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > "*Unfortunately, more and more employers no longer offer health insurance. He works as a welder for a small company and was thrown to the wolves when he had to get a personal health insurance plan."*
> ...



Ha!  If you get sick or hurt and are uninsured, you'll be in the ER getting free treatment like all the other 'Bums.'  You ain't going quietly into the night based on your principles.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

We should all be THANKFUL that our Federal Guberment has a MAJIC WAND and poof it has all the money it needs to take care of you poor working stiffs..


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> We should all be THANKFUL that our Federal Guberment has a MAJIC WAND and poof it has all the money it needs to take care of you poor working stiffs..



Federal money isn't being used to extend dependent coverage.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I am afraid you are quite wrong. Millions of hard working Americans still struggle in this economy. They must choose between spending their hard earned wages on rent, utility bills, medical bills, food and transportation.

Many of these hard working families need assistance with healthcare, food and rent subsidies


Too bad the GOP considers them to be moochers while they give tax cuts to their millionaire buddies


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Too bad the GOP considers them to be moochers while they give tax cuts to their millionaire buddies



When it comes specifically to kids in their early to mid-20s, I'll give the GOP proper credit--they like the idea of extending dependent coverage and included it in their proposals. It's just segments of their nutjob base that has the sort of kneejerk reaction on display in this thread.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> 
> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



The rest of get to pay the 1800 dollars it saves you per year. Yay!


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



yes, and you can thank obamacare and obam's attack on business for that. Yay!


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Its great to see Obamacare providing real benefits for real Americans

More needs to be done to provide affordable heathcare to all Americans, but this is a great start


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> ...



No you don't

It is in my employer provided plan through a private insurance company.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yell I've seen those hard working Americans, this past Christmas,  beggeing for an extention on their water bill while talking on the newest wireless phone making an appointment to the beautian. getting in to that new shiny car, with the in box new flat screen tv in the back yep thats the hard working American for you.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If it saves you, then it costs us. Most folks now will pay increased insurance premiums. Yay!


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Its great to see Obamacare providing real benefits for real Americans
> 
> More needs to be done to provide affordable heathcare to all Americans, but this is a great start



oh yeah, Us *working stiffs* need to "do more" to take care of those poor souls who can't go out and pay for THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Its great to see Obamacare providing real benefits for real Americans
> ...



Speak up, speak up, speak up.

You've got 'Obamacare' Nailed and we're all enjoying the education.

Speak up.  Lay some more wisdom on us.

Just genius.


----------



## finebead (Jan 2, 2011)

The problem is that after WWII, the US decided business would provide workers with their health insurance benefits, but business began to more and more, welch on the agreement.  They quit providing health insurance to their workers in larger numbers, so that in 2007 only 61% of small businesses provided health ins. benefit to their workers.  That is NOT a national health insurance system that is effective.



> Updated 12/13/2007
> 
> By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
> Fewer small employers offered health insurance this year, despite the widespread availability of new, lower-cost high-deductible insurance plans, a survey released today by benefit firm Mercer shows.
> ...


Fewer small firms offer health insurance - USATODAY.com


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

finebead said:


> The problem is that after WWII, the US decided business would provide workers with their health insurance benefits, but business began to more and more, welch on the agreement.  They quit providing health insurance to their workers in larger numbers, so that in 2007 only 61% of small businesses provided health ins. benefit to their workers.  That is NOT a national health insurance system that is effective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Offering medical benefits was how employers got around FDR's stupid wage controls. Little wonder that when said controls are eliminated, that things returned to the way they were in many cases.

Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't care if it is my post it's worth repeating


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.

ain't that Obama just grand, he gonna take CARE of us all.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.
> 
> ain't that Obama just grand, he gonna take CARE of us all.



You understand that's the right's branding of it, don't you? It has a real name that has nothing to do with Obama, you just don't use it.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.
> ...



isn't that what rightwingnut propagandists do?


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.
> ...



LOL, I didn't start the thread.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.
> 
> ain't that Obama just grand, he gonna take CARE of us all.



Yes.....it is good to have someone who cares about his fellow Americans

Imagine wanting all Americans to have affordable Healthcare?

What a concept!


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.
> ...



LOL, if HE CARED so much about us, he would "PAY" for our health care out of his OWN pocket.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It is worth repeating to show you are completely clueless regarding the economic conditions in this country.

Replaying the "poor people drive Cadilacs and eat Filet Mignon" rightwing myth proves it


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad the GOP considers them to be moochers while they give tax cuts to their millionaire buddies
> ...



Yea...They like the idea but voted against it


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.



spoken like someone who never had to pay $2,100 a month for coverage for a family.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No you're clueless. When you don't have the money for the basics of life you do not go out and buy things like wireless phone service, new tv go to the hair dresser,  designer clothes,  new car. You are totaly out of the reim of reality. When money is short you cut the non needed items and use your money on things you need.

OH and by the way, it's not a myth, I see it with my own eyes everytime I go pay a bill, such as water electric. Or I over hear at the bank about someone asking help for bounced checks.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What, cut back?
Not today, all ya gotta do is go to Our Sugar Daddy, the beloved Federal Guberment


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Thats odd..

What I see are people struggling to pay a $450 heating bill on top of $1500 rent. I see them wonder whether they can afford to go to a doctor because they can't afford the deductable. 
I see them putting off maintenance on a 15 year old car and wondering how they can afford the gas and insurance


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



basic cell service is a necessity.

do you know if they have landlines as well?

you know, since you know who *they* are.

personally, i've never bounced a check. but i know that lots of people with money

who are these people and how do you know *they* have no money for basics? other than the color of their skin, of course.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.
> ...


Awwww....Full coverage (read: pre-paid medical) is expensive.

To someone who bothers with an objective thought, it would seem that it's awful expensive to schlep your bills off onto someone else.


----------



## finebead (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that after WWII, the US decided business would provide workers with their health insurance benefits, but business began to more and more, welch on the agreement.  They quit providing health insurance to their workers in larger numbers, so that in 2007 only 61% of small businesses provided health ins. benefit to their workers.  That is NOT a national health insurance system that is effective.
> ...



I can pay for my insurance if I am guaranteed coverage.  Many cannot, and that's the problem.  The difference between health and auto or homeowners insurance is that accessibility is a moral issue.  If you wreck your car, you can ride a bike or take a bus.  If you lose your house to a fire you can sleep in your car, or in a shelter.  Those are not life and death.  If you get seriously ill and are denied access to the health insurance system, most individuals will not have access to the life saving treatments available today (but at high cost usually).  So, the society provides access in some other ways, but not necessarily to everyone.  But, the society recognizes it as a moral issue and makes an attempt to provide access, because many can't afford the monthly premium and the society does not want to see them die if they can be saved, within reason (like car wreck victims).


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wouldn't someone have a land line phone if they were paying the phone bill?

But let's just go on the opsumtion they don't have a landline, why the need for the new phone? They are close to 300.00 just for the phone.

Why would someone who has money go and ask for an extention to prevent their utliites from being shut off?


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.
> ...



Yes they did leave out a couple of other _millionaire monsters _when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the _emergency_---of 2010, not the economy and jobs!  Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> Yes they did leave out a couple of other _millionaire monsters _when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the _emergency_---of 2010, not the economy and jobs!  Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...



If you want to associate a name with it, the one that makes the most sense is Baucus, since the shell of the ACA was provided by the Senate Finance Committee's bill.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

finebead said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > finebead said:
> ...


If only if I had such "guaranteed coverage", I could live in a 10,000ft²  house and drive a Ferrari. 

Since when do you have a right to make someone else pay your bills?


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they did leave out a couple of other _millionaire monsters _when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the _emergency_---of 2010, not the economy and jobs!  Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...
> ...



Since the _bill was never read until it was signed into law_, we can assume that it was corruption at it's finest and most experienced, when all involved pushed it on legislators throats with intimidation and coercion.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yeah, that's why we're attempting to figure out where that $2100 a month is going.  Rather than find a way to broadcast an exorbitant cost, why not try to get the cost down?

Question, odddude, would you object to a public option that was 100% premium funded?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they did leave out a couple of other _millionaire monsters _when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the _emergency_---of 2010, not the economy and jobs!  Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...
> ...


You want to associate it with someone truly apropos?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Here's a way to get that down...Buy catastrophic-only coverage with a high deductible, and take the expenses for things like routine doctor visits out of pocket.

It's amazing how inexpensive life can get when you actually pay your own way.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



So is that a yes, or no?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You can die without affordable healthcare

You will not die without a 10,000 sq foot house


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > finebead said:
> ...


So, socialized medical services are going to make you immortal now?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> Since the _bill was never read until it was signed into law_...



Never read by who? Baucus's Chairman's Mark of the Finance Committee bill was about 200 pages of plain English describing current health policy and the changes his bill was making to it. That bill then went through a markup live on C-Span 2, in which amendments from Finance Committee members were debated and voted on (notably, Olympia Snowe was able to get large enough changes that she ultimately voted the bill out of committee), for about a week and a half. 

About six weeks after that, the final bill resulting from the merger of the Finance bill and some provisions of the HELP committee's bill (including the provision this thread is dedicated to) was released. And about 5-6 weeks after that, the Senate voted on it.  And then three months later, the House voted on that bill. Anyone who didn't read it simply didn't care. I'm sure that describes a great many elected officials but such is life.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > My gawd, can you believe people actually crow about living off the backs of others via the Federal Guberment.
> ...


When will that be? The Gubamint gave waivers to the "Super Wealthy" so guess who pays for your kids health care?

Middle Class.

Thanks asshole.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


That's a no....The cynically dubbed "public option" is a pure scam.

There simply is no right to a third-party payor for your bills, no matter how many disingenuous Orwellian words you want to wrap around it.


----------



## finebead (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The question is what type of heathcare system do we want in america?  The society has decided we want a moral system, otherwise we would not attempt to save accident victims who are seriously injured and it is not known if they have insurance or an ability to pay, we just save them if possible.  We do that because it is the moral thing to do.  So, as a society we have decided to do the morally correct thing with healthcare.  

Other societies have decided to cover everyone, and they do, and they spend a lot less per person than the US does, like England spends about 10% of GDP to cover everyone, while the US spends 17% of GDP to cover 84% of the people.  But, the insurance companies make the rules up, and they are our first death panel, throwing people off their insurance if they get too sick, or denying them coverage is they lose their job and they or their family member has a pre-existing condition, even though they had coverage before for years.  That's wrong.  So many people see its wrong, they voted in enough dems and Obama to change it, and they did.  I'm glad, it was needed. 

Did we get the best reform package we could?  Under the circumstances, probably.  But, if the repubs had put some effort into getting a better system instead of just saying no, we might have gotten a better reform.  But the changes we got were needed.  We need "must insure", remove lifetime maximums, no dropping folks who get sick and need the insurance.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Awwww....Full coverage (read: pre-paid medical) is expensive.
> 
> To someone who bothers with an objective thought, it would seem that it's awful expensive to schlep your bills off onto someone else.



it's not 'schepping' (which means 'dragging', btw, i think you mean 'sloughing') your bills off onto someone else. collective bargaining brings down the price. fact of life. i have better coverage now and pay far less for it.

as for objective thought, let me know when you think about the real-life ramifications of the dickensian nightmare you think passes for an acceptable world.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 2, 2011)

Not only was it not read, it was not even written, by Baucus. He has admitted that. I wll find it for you but for now, I am saying *Bygones* to this thread of nothing learned. 

Happy New Year.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



No, you don't object, or no you don't approve?

Isn't all insurance a third-party payer?  Do you then feel all insurance should be illegal?

And I'm not talking about anything that's been proposed.  Strictly hypotheticals.  Public option, not-for-profit but 100% premium-funded, with no taxpayer subsidies.

If still you object, what of the same exact thing but rather than government-administered, simply a private non-profit by a group of wealthy philanthropists... Again in a hypothetical world where it would in fact be non-profit.  (I ask this one because I'm surprised one doesn't already exist)


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



no. they could have been paying their cell phone bill. d'uh.

and phones are renewable every two years at a discount. i got two blackberry storm2's last time around for $80.

sometimes people have unanticipated expense. for someone who doesn't make huge money, a medical bill can take up the phone money for the month.

that's why.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



so if they pay it is moochinig, if they don't....who pays then? 



> 2, don't know how old you are, but I can venture a guess that the job market wasn't as shitty as it is now.



 if unemployment was around 5% you'd be okay with dropping this?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


In the hypothetical, I'd want to just check out and go live with John Galt in his gulch.

But you feel free to keep designing your unicorn ranch.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > We should all be THANKFUL that our Federal Guberment has a MAJIC WAND and poof it has all the money it needs to take care of you poor working stiffs..
> ...



whos paying for it?the state? 

....here we go again, are we going to go through the 8 post exchange as we did last time on this very topic before you admit who's paying for what for this option?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

trajan said:


> cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > stephanie said:
> ...



you shouldn't ask the moochers the hard questions they will blow a fuse trying to lie their way out of it.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



If they don't pay, I'm suggesting that the child pays it.  Whose plan it is is irrelevant.  If someone's mooching off their parents, that's a private matter and 'Obamacare' has nothing to do with it.

And no, I would never be Ok with the manner in which HC is currently administered in this country.  The amount of care you receive should not be determined by how much you can pay, and nobody should become more wealthy by finding a reason to deny your coverage, whether you did or didn't violate something on page 171 of your contract.  

Of course, that indiscretion was ignored for years while you were profitable... They didn't start looking for it until you suddenly became a burden.  It sickens me.  

I don't think the current plan is a cure-all by any means.  In fact, I'd say overall that I'm dissatisfied with the way it panned out.  But it is a start.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Are you saying that, based on your belief that it won't happen, you can't even provide a valid response to my question?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> Not only was it not read, it was not even written, by Baucus. He has admitted that. I wll find it for you but for now, I am saying *Bygones* to this thread of nothing learned.
> 
> Happy New Year.



Baucus said he didn't read the _legislative language_. As I said, his Chairman's Mark was written in plain English because that's how the Finance committee does it (you could argue that _all_ committees in Congress should do that). He and his staff wrote and designed the policy, which can be laid out in about 200 pages. Once that's marked up (i.e. edited by the committee), they hand it over to committee staff lawyers who translate it into legislative language, which is the dry legal language that makes it into the U.S. Code. That's how 200 pages of policy turns into 2,000 pages of text.

Legislators write policy, their lawyers write the actual laws. Claiming Baucus didn't write the _substance_ (policy) in his bill because a team of lawyers turned it into legalese is disingenuous.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Obamacare recognizes there are savings in volume

The larger your insurance pool ..the bigger your savings. Can you believe there are people in this country who are so self centered that they do not want their fellow Americans to be able to receive medical care if they become ill?

Thankfully, Obamacare is now the law of the land. People like my son, who are just starting out can now be covered under their parents healthcare and not be price gouged by going on the market as a single insured

Thanks Obamacare!


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Can you believe there are people in this country so ignorant and self-involved that they believe the only way to medical care paradise is to have a third party pay their bills, and that a federal gubmint that has never contained costs for anything will now make such medical services less expensive?

Well, believe it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





> If they don't pay, I'm suggesting that the child pays it.  Whose plan it is is irrelevant.  If someone's mooching off their parents, that's a private matter and 'Obamacare' has nothing to do with it.



obamacare has nothing to do with it? WOW talk about stupid. Iobamacare is allowing it to happen. Without it it would never happen.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


----------



## finebead (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



You think private insurance has been doing a good job controlling healthcare costs???

No, they have been accelerating at twice the rate of inflation for two decades.  Could anyone do WORSE than private ins. did?  Medicare did better controlling costs the last two decades.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> collective bargaining brings down the price. fact of life. i have better coverage now and pay far less for it.
> 
> a large pool J,  brings down the price in that context.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

finebead said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



so the gov will do a better job? and has?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.
> ...



right on time, glad to see the memo caught up to you. 

name change time guys; 'obamacare' is toxic because we have an epic communication failure or the bill is problematic and dieing on its feet, OR both

 ....GW=CC...


OC =????


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Obamacare is not administered by the Federal Government...it pools all Americans who then select PRIVATE insurance.

Insurance has always worked from others paying your bills. Some people pay and pay and never use it while a smaller percentage use massive amounts of the insurance dollar and pay very little


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Really? Care to explain this?

Secretary Sebelius Calls on Health Insurers to Stop Misinformation and Unjustified Rate Increases 

Secretary Sebelius Calls on Health Insurers to Stop Misinformation and Unjustified Rate Increases ? HealthCare Notes | HealthCare.gov


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





the big lie never fails.....yup, you bought it-

we will cover everyone ( but that unfortunate 20 million but fuc them ,we 'won') extending care to another 30 million AND provide better service AND save money....

you believe this,  you're deranged.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> 
> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



one more time- this 1800....so the ins. co. out of the goodness of their hearts has extended coverage to your son....? you no longer pay 1800? 
They decided to forgo $1800 ,,,why?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



What is deranged about providing insurance coverage to those who need it?  

You post once again demonstrates the rightwing attitude of "I got mine....fuck everyone else"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



On the backs of others I see something very wrong with it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> ...



God knows I appreciate all that insurance companies do for us. They set up the system where people who work for large companies get favorable rates while those who are self employed or work for small companies get screwed.
Obamacare was a handout to the nice people in the Health Insurance Business. They spent billions to kill the Public Option because they knew it would drive down their rates.
One of the concessions they had to make for killing the public option was agreeing to a new framework of rules

This is one of them


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Yes, on the backs of others
That is how insurance has always worked. It is one big collective where the few benefit from the contributions of the many


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



you mean the msm? because they carry that water. Blaming anyone but them is imho a stretch. 

if this thing was an apparent success these comment son the name would  never have been made because they wouldn't now be trying to distance themselves from it and change anything. 

and I can clearly remember Dems in 93 using the the appellation HILLARYCARE .


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



what does that have to do with his point?


----------



## finebead (Jan 2, 2011)

The folks schlepping on the system were the folks with group coverage available, or the ability to pay for private ins. who chose not to carry it.  They'd rather drink and have a good time with the money.  If they got in a serious car crash, as a moral matter the society already said they would treat the schlep and pick up the tab, so the schlep took advantage of the society by failing to pay his way.  He won, and if he got in the wreck or got cancer, the society paid his way.  That has to end.  That was the schlepper.

If the policy had been, no insurance, no treatment and you die, they would have paid, or died.  But we've declared ourselves moral and would not let them die.  If we must treat you, you must pay into the system.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Here's the point


> Obamacare is not administered by the Federal Government



If the federal government is not adminstering obamacare why is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services sending out letters telling people to stop with giving out any misinformation?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> If the federal government is not adminstering obamacare why is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services sending out letters telling people to stop with giving out any misinformation?



Sebelius is a politician. Rate review remains a state responsibility, as it's always been.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



do you believe (in) this premise,  yes or no?

-care is extended to another 30 million
-better care 
- they will save money....

yes....or ...no?


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare recognizes there are savings in volume
> 
> The larger your insurance pool ..the bigger your savings. Can you believe there are people in this country who are so self centered that they do not want their fellow Americans to be able to receive medical care if they become ill?
> 
> ...



You should be thanking the middle class Americans who are subsidizing you, NOT 0bamacare...

Although I am not surprised you would be thanking daddy gubmint...  It's in your blood...


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare recognizes there are savings in volume
> ...



Can you imagine that!

Obamacare is a government program that actually helps struggling middle class Americans.  

Imagine being gravely ill and told your benefits have run out
Imagine surviving cancer as a child and being told nobody wants to cover you as an adult
Imagine struggling with a small business and finding you are priced out of health insurance
Imagine having to file for bankruptcy because of healthcare bills?

Thanks Obamacare!


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I believe the market will adjust to the increase in covered patients


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > If the federal government is not adminstering obamacare why is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services sending out letters telling people to stop with giving out any misinformation?
> ...



Sebelius is a politician? NON ANSWER.

I take it you did not read the letter.
just a portion from that letter.
 Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers.  We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.  Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers.  We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.  Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.



That regulation was issued a week or two ago. It says what I just said: states will define and determine unreasonable rate increases for themselves. As with the rest of ACA, states have a huge degree of autonomy in implementing rate review.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



thats  not an answer to my question(s)- 

again-

you pay $0.00 for your sons coverage which he has now been enrolled in due to Obama care. 

correct?

-you have 'saved'  $1800.00 in Premiums , because this would have been the price if YOU paid?

correct?

- Who paid the ins. co. the $1800.00 to cover your son?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers.  We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.  Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.
> ...



so why was there a speech on Zero Tolerance on this issue from Sibelius?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



is that a yes or no-

care will be better?   yes or no?

it will save money?  yes or no? 

thanx.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers.  We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.  Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.
> ...



So the fedural government will regulate? 


> Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review



Shut up and do as we say or we will put you out of busniess.


> those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So the fedural government will regulate?



No. As with the exchanges and the PCIPs, the feds will only do it if a state prefers not to. States have autonomy in enforcing this provision. 



> This proposed regulation does not establish a standard for unreasonableness that a State must use or apply; nor does it require a numerical standard to be applied under State law to determine whether a rate increase is unreasonable. Rather, a State regulator would apply the applicable standards that exist under State law.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Imagine paying for it yourself, freeloader...

Selfish ass....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > So the fedural government will regulate?
> ...




Even when the federal government says they will regulate you say they want?
What does regulate mean?

Later this fall, *we will issue a regulation* that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers

Talking about being dishonest.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Even when the federal gopvernment says they will regulate you say they want?
> What does regulate mean?
> 
> Later this fall, *we will issue a regulation* that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers



Are you dense? My quote is _from_ that regulation. Let me repeat it for you.




> This proposed regulation does not establish a standard for unreasonableness that a State must use or apply; nor does it require a numerical standard to be applied under State law to determine whether a rate increase is unreasonable. *Rather, a State regulator would apply the applicable standards that exist under State law.*



There, it's in color for you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Even when the federal gopvernment says they will regulate you say they want?
> ...



What is a regulation?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 2, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Ever been REALLY sick?
Ever had hundreds of thousands in medical bills?
Ever had to wonder if you could save your home and still pay your medical bills?
Ever had a seriously ill child you have to take care of?

You don't care......selfish ass


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 2, 2011)

Next:  

0bamacellcare (free cell plans for everyone), 0bamacablecare (free cable/internet for everyone), 0bama1080pcare (free hi def flat-screens for everyone)

Exemptions for the wealthy who can "opt out", of course...


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What is a regulation?



In this case, it's a reaffirmation of state autonomy over rate review.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



This will still happen under 0ssiahcare....  Your 0ssiah won't be able to save them...

You don't care....  You got yours....

Selfish ass...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > What is a regulation?
> ...



Nope stop the dishonest double talk

Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that *will require* state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers

Regulations that will require. The feds are telling the states what to do.

 It's right there you can't lie about it.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Next:
> 
> 0bamacellcare (free cell plans for everyone), 0bamacablecare (free cable/internet for everyone), 0bama1080pcare (free hi def flat-screens for everyone)
> 
> Exemptions for the wealthy who can "opt out", of course...



hey homey, can I get one of those Obama1080pcare programs please?


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> > If they don't pay, I'm suggesting that the child pays it.  Whose plan it is is irrelevant.  If someone's mooching off their parents, that's a private matter and 'Obamacare' has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> obamacare has nothing to do with it? WOW talk about stupid. Iobamacare is allowing it to happen. Without it it would never happen.



No, dingus, you're wrong.  'Obamacare' has nothing to do with WHO PAYS the premium.  Yes, the HCR made it possible for people to carry their children on their policy for longer (if they CHOOSE TO, that is), but does not mandate that the PARENTS PAY for the coverage.  Are you suggesting it should be illegal for parents to pay for their childrens' insurance?  Imbecile...

So yes, talk about stupid; That is, YOU, once again.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Regulations that will require. The feds are telling the states what to do.



Yes, review is required. That's the point. But states determine the standards and processes of that review and they implement it, not the feds. *States are administering this provision of the law (and many others).* Do you remember how this strand of the thread began? With you asking _"If the federal government is not adminstering obamacare..."_. Guess what? In the instance we're discussing here, they're not.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > > If they don't pay, I'm suggesting that the child pays it.  Whose plan it is is irrelevant.  If someone's mooching off their parents, that's a private matter and 'Obamacare' has nothing to do with it.
> ...



q Cuyo- why was this stipulation created to begin with?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Regulations that will require. The feds are telling the states what to do.
> ...



You're Double talking again a REGULATION is what she said and thats what it is A regulation is the dictates of what the federal government wants.

And this portion of the letter
In other words you will do it our way or we will put you out of busniess.


> We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

Right-o...The states are administering what the feds mandate that they do.

As though Tessio and Clemenza were completely autonomous and insulated from Don Vito's edicts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > > If they don't pay, I'm suggesting that the child pays it.  Whose plan it is is irrelevant.  If someone's mooching off their parents, that's a private matter and 'Obamacare' has nothing to do with it.
> ...



Gawd I am glad that most of America is not as smart as you. We would really be fucked.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Because mom &or dad are more likely to belong to a group rate, whereas Jr. might not have access to one, and it's an economy of scale, best I can figure.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You're an idiot - There's really not much else to say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



No really I am thankful Most Americans are not as smart as you. I am glad most have common sense and can see through your type of obama hype. Thank God for people with common sense  the smart people would destroy us if we allowed them the chance.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Then surely you can show something wrong with what I've said.

Oh, wait, you can't.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're Double talking again a REGULATION is what she said and thats what it is A regulation is the dictates of what the federal government wants.



And what they want is for the states to stay at the wheel.



> And this portion of the letter
> In other words you will do it our way or we will put you out of busniess.
> 
> 
> > We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014



Exclusion decisions will be made by the state exchange itself. The law ensures that unjustified premium increases are a valid criteria for exclusion by the exchange and that state rate reviewers may weigh in (to their state's exchange) on whether an insurer has a history of unjustified rate increases, as defined by state legislation. Notice, again, the level of government with operational responsibility and authority.

Things aren't changing quite as much as you seem to believe.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Witrhout obamacare we would not have this directive. no wait you're to stupid to grasp that. I'll slow down if you do not understand.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



alright so why 26? why not 30...36?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > You're Double talking again a REGULATION is what she said and thats what it is A regulation is the dictates of what the federal government wants.
> ...





> And what they want is for the states to stay at the wheel.



IT'S A FUCKING GOVERNMENT MANDATE. The federal government is telling the states what to do.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Hows that any different from Jr. having his own policy and mom and dad PAYING for it?  Again, whether they're on a private policy or their parents' is irrelevant.

Ahh the little hamster wheel in BigRedNecks head stops and a light flickers on...

Now you can apologize.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Why not a public option?  Why not a national group-rate-for-all?  The answer - The ONLY answer - is protectionism of insurance company profits.

I'm not thrilled with HCR as I've stated repeatedly.  But overall I prefer it passed than un-passed.  Stalling by HCR opponents until they are back in power so they can sweep it into discretion would be unacceptable.  At least now we've got a law on the books that nobody's thrilled with, so we can go about the business of making it better.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Junior if it wasn't for obamacare we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Point made.  The mooching off mom and dad argument is irrelevant, UTTERLY irrelevant, to Obamacare.

Apology accepted.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



well, I don't think that the only answer because I personally believe that insurance co's as we know them in health care are dinosaurs. 

And that the mechanisms of payment or middleman being taken from their hands will EVENTUALLY create more issues than it will solve and more than the 10% profit they take away from what ostensibly could/ would be used for access and care.

 This plan has failed completely and absolutely to conform to its original intent- bend the cost curve of medical care.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I said nothing to  apologize for but thank you for apologizing


----------



## DaveakaDavid (Jan 17, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> 
> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



I don't know anyone that's happy with it, most people I know are paying thousands more per year. My son can't afford the high price of Obamacare so he has to pay a $900 a year penalty for not having health insurance.


----------



## Slashsnake (Jan 22, 2017)

DaveakaDavid said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> ...



A  lot of people don't understand what you're saying because they're moochers who get huge breaks from the people subsidizing them with their high premiums.


----------



## Slashsnake (Jan 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Well the New Year is here and I am now able to put my 23 yr old son back on my health insurance plan. Saves us $1800 a year in premiums
> 
> Those with pre-existing conditions and who are over their lifetime cap must be happy too



What do you mean by "us." Tell your 23 year old son to pay his own bills.


----------



## DaveakaDavid (Jan 22, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> DaveakaDavid said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 Yes, they think the money to provide that healthcare magically appears. Other people are paying for their kids insurance, socialism!


----------

