Damn! My health Insurance went up anther $60 a month. Obamacare sucks!

[JoeB131]

Those businesses support infrastructure, too. You think you have too much say in something you don't. I guess you really believe what your n****r President said when they didn't build that. Perhaps that's why you blame your former employer for ridding themselves of an idiot like you.

Well, I blame them for outright lying to me, like the Regional VP who asked me to stay during the transition and promised I would be reassigned new work afterwards.

but that's neither here nor there. The reality is, you didn't build that. Businesses exist because we have a system that nurtures them. We give them shitloads of tax breaks on the promise they'll create jobs, and they still manage to cheat the rest of us.

We should go back to what we had before Reagan. Tax the fuck out of the rich, pay for infrastructure and if private companies want to compete for workers, they'll have to offer competitive benefits.

 

[Papageorgio]

Those businesses support infrastructure, too. You think you have too much say in something you don't. I guess you really believe what your n****r President said when they didn't build that. Perhaps that's why you blame your former employer for ridding themselves of an idiot like you.

Well, I blame them for outright lying to me, like the Regional VP who asked me to stay during the transition and promised I would be reassigned new work afterwards.

but that's neither here nor there. The reality is, you didn't build that. Businesses exist because we have a system that nurtures them. We give them shitloads of tax breaks on the promise they'll create jobs, and they still manage to cheat the rest of us.

We should go back to what we had before Reagan. Tax the fuck out of the rich, pay for infrastructure and if private companies want to compete for workers, they'll have to offer competitive benefits.

I thought liberals were about moving ahead and not holding on to the past?

As far as businesses cheating you, that is all in your mind.

 

[Zoom-boing]

My brother had an individual catastrophic policy (before the shit) that cost him $170/month w/a 3k or so deductible. That's gone, his comparable plan (BC) that replaced it was $590/month w/a 6k deductible and that just went up to $675/month.

Six hundred seventy five dollars PER MONTH. He's single, no kids, mid-50's. Someone explain to me how you're ok with this? You idiots keep saying "oh, but MILLIONS! now have insurance" yet you say NOTHING of those who are getting royally screwed footing the bill. What about those MILLIONS?? What we had before was 85% insured and happy with it; 15% not insured. So they upended the entire system, screwing over the 85% for the 15%, when they could have addressed things like pre-exisiting conditions and such on an individual basis without screwing it for the vast majority. While we're at it, someone explain to me how you believe it's ok for someone with a p/e to pay the same as someone without a p/e. Who the hell do you think is paying the difference?? because those with p/e's are a higher risk and cost more to insure. It isn't free, it isn't "government money", we the taxpayer are being jacked out the ass paying for this shit. So stop with your "millions can now get insurance!" bullshit. It isn't sustainable, it will collapse, rising premium costs are not being addressed, where the hell is the $2,500 premium savings per family that obutthead promised, huh? It's all shit.

I would ask what the $170.00 a month policy actually covered, and Im willing to bet it wasn't much. The reason they charge more now is they CAN'T cheat guys like your brother by claiming pre-existing conditions.

My insurance is the same as it was when i started. So excuse me if I don't take cover because you say the sky is falling.

Figured you come along and say it was a junk policy. It covered his needs, he used it for hospitalization, it did not cover maternity, mamograms, pediatrics because he doesn't need to be covered for them. If his needs changed, he would have changed his insurance, he HAD a choice. But now he has to pay FOUR TIMES as much because some other slup won't. As for the p/e's .... you failed to answer my question. How is it ok for a diabetic to pay the same premium as someone without diabetes? How the HELL is that fair to those who do not have p/e's?? Why the HELL should I pay more so p/e person gets to pay less? P/e people SHOULD pay more because they cost more to insure. ONly in fucked up leftist land where "what's mine is mine and oh, part of yours is mine too" does that make any sense.

 

[JoeB131]

I thought liberals were about moving ahead and not holding on to the past?

As far as businesses cheating you, that is all in your mind.

I am moving ahead. But I also learned from the past.

Now here's the thing. I compare my time at the company to a zombie movie. The first five years I worked there, I got good reviews, everyone was friends and things were kind of nice. Then pretty much the recession hit, and much like a Zombie movie, everyone started turning on each other.

 

[dblack]

What size jackboots do you wear, Joe?

 

[JoeB131]

Figured you come along and say it was a junk policy. It covered his needs, he used it for hospitalization, it did not cover maternity, mamograms, pediatrics because he doesn't need to be covered for them.

It's unlikely that his rate went up because of things he'll never use. More likely, the insurance companies are hedging their bets against the claims he was going to make they were probably planning on cheating him on.

If his needs changed, he would have changed his insurance, he HAD a choice. But now he has to pay FOUR TIMES as much because some other slup won't. As for the p/e's .... you failed to answer my question. How is it ok for a diabetic to pay the same premium as someone without diabetes? How the HELL is that fair to those who do not have p/e's?? Why the HELL should I pay more so p/e person gets to pay less? P/e people SHOULD pay more because they cost more to insure. ONly in fucked up leftist land where "what's mine is mine and oh, part of yours is mine too" does that make any sense.

Actually, if you really wanted to go there, then no one would be able to get insurance. Why stop at diabetes? Why not make smokers pay more. Drinkers. The overweight?

You miss the point. It wasn't that the insurance companies were just refusing PE's, it was that htey were doing shit like claiming that acne as a teenager was a PE for the skin cancer you are getting in your 50's.

 

[JoeB131]

What size jackboots do you wear, Joe?

10 1/2 Wide. With a square toe for sticking up the ass of Libertarian Assholes..

 

[dblack]

What size jackboots do you wear, Joe?

10 1/2 Wide. With a square toe for sticking up the ass of Libertarian Assholes..

Excellent! Those square toes make it easier to trip you up!

 

[JoeB131]

What size jackboots do you wear, Joe?

10 1/2 Wide. With a square toe for sticking up the ass of Libertarian Assholes..

Excellent! Those square toes make it easier to trip you up!

Yeah, but you know, here's the thing. The GOP is going to deep six Rand Paul like they did Ron Paul.

The party needs to stop playing nice with the Libertards.

 

[dblack]

What size jackboots do you wear, Joe?

10 1/2 Wide. With a square toe for sticking up the ass of Libertarian Assholes..

Excellent! Those square toes make it easier to trip you up!

Yeah, but you know, here's the thing. The GOP is going to deep six Rand Paul like they did Ron Paul.

The party needs to stop playing nice with the Libertards.

Agreed. And vice versa.

 

[Spare_change]

Those businesses support infrastructure, too. You think you have too much say in something you don't. I guess you really believe what your n****r President said when they didn't build that. Perhaps that's why you blame your former employer for ridding themselves of an idiot like you.

Well, I blame them for outright lying to me, like the Regional VP who asked me to stay during the transition and promised I would be reassigned new work afterwards.

but that's neither here nor there. The reality is, you didn't build that. Businesses exist because we have a system that nurtures them. We give them shitloads of tax breaks on the promise they'll create jobs, and they still manage to cheat the rest of us.

We should go back to what we had before Reagan. Tax the fuck out of the rich, pay for infrastructure and if private companies want to compete for workers, they'll have to offer competitive benefits.

Now, we understand where you're coming from .... and it ain't a pretty sight.

You failed ... but you want us to pay for your failure.

 

[JoeB131]

Now, we understand where you're coming from .... and it ain't a pretty sight.

You failed ... but you want us to pay for your failure.

I do pretty well, actually, given that there's been a 30 year war by the rich to demolish the middle class in this country.

 

[Conservative65]

Now, we understand where you're coming from .... and it ain't a pretty sight.

You failed ... but you want us to pay for your failure.

I do pretty well, actually, given that there's been a 30 year war by the rich to demolish the middle class in this country.

Says the one that can't keep a job.

 

[Conservative65]

Those businesses support infrastructure, too. You think you have too much say in something you don't. I guess you really believe what your n****r President said when they didn't build that. Perhaps that's why you blame your former employer for ridding themselves of an idiot like you.

Well, I blame them for outright lying to me, like the Regional VP who asked me to stay during the transition and promised I would be reassigned new work afterwards.

but that's neither here nor there. The reality is, you didn't build that. Businesses exist because we have a system that nurtures them. We give them shitloads of tax breaks on the promise they'll create jobs, and they still manage to cheat the rest of us.

We should go back to what we had before Reagan. Tax the fuck out of the rich, pay for infrastructure and if private companies want to compete for workers, they'll have to offer competitive benefits.

Things change. Sort of like "If you like . . " well you know the rest.

That's the pat answer for you Liberals. Tax the other guy you think has too much.

If a private company pays someone with $7.25/hour skills $7.25/hour that's competitive if that's all they're worth wherever they go.

 

[Conservative65]

As far as telling large businesses, (small businesses are exempt already) that they must cover health care insurance for their employees...I do not necessarily agree with that.... I'd rather see Universal Health Care for all, and every business and individual citizens contribute towards achieving that, via taxes...

Problem with your idea of Universal Healthcare for all is that you say it would be paid for via taxes by individuals. What about those not paying the taxes that fund it. Should they still get it? If so, then what you believe in is UH for all paid by some. At least be honest.

yes, if they make so little that the standard deduction and personal exemption that we all get for the first $10k or so, or first $20k or so that we earn if married, allows them to owe no income tax.

You and I are not paying taxes on the initial amount that we earn in which the standard deductions and personal exemptions cover either.

As far as child tax credits and earned income credits and paying for Medicaid for the poorest, and CHIP for the children without health care programs, and getting health care through Social security disabilty, and reimbursing Hospitals for the Health Care for the indigent gotten through the Emergency Room, etc etc etc....taking those things away from our tax code or killing the programs or revising them should be done....due to now having Universal Health Care.... so ALL of those kind of health care programs that are piece meal now, would and should be eliminated.

Then you're entire claim about individual citizens contributing toward the goal of healthcare for all really means only certain ones of us not all of us. If it's universal, then the entire citizenry should pay regardless of income.

Difference between me and the ones not paying due to the initial deductions and exemptions is that I still have to pay while the don't and many of them actually get more than they may have put in through the EIC. That's bullshit. It's one thing to get back all you put in. It's another to get back more than you put in that someone like me has to pay. I don't owe anyone a damn thing.

Bullshit on your claim that they would be eliminated. Currently, low income children get free lunch and breakfast as the schools in the District that I fund. Many of them receive food stamps which is calculated on 1095 meals/year or 3 meal/day x 365 days/year. Since they are already getting one handout funded by taxes they don't pay, it's redundant to provide them something funded by other taxes they don't pay when that need is already being met. When is the amount for food stamps going to be reduced on an equivalent to the number of meals they get through another handout program. That's 360 meals/year (180 school days x 2 meal/school day.

When has any social welfare leech handout program ever gone away?

 

[Conservative65]

Paying someone an equivalent wage for the skills they have, one that should be deciding by the payer not some bleeding heart like you, doesn't make them a robber barron. What I want is for people like you to STFU about what a business chooses to pay its employees unless your the business owner do the paying. Don't like what the person makes, start your own business and pay them what you think they should make. I won't say a word if you're doing the paying.

Actually, businesses long ago forfeited that kind of consideration.

The thing was, they did pay their workers a fair wage at one time. It was that period in the 1950-1970's when most of the workforce was unionized or got good wages to match what the union guys got.

And the wealthy couldn't wait to fuck that up.

Unions, huh? Anyone that relies on a union to do his/her bidding isn't worth hiring. Never worked for one and do quite well.

Private businesses haven't forfeited the right to make those decisions except to idiots like you that don't understand it's not your money or place to tell them how much they should pay.

 

[Conservative65]

Problem with your idea of Universal Healthcare for all is that you say it would be paid for via taxes by individuals. What about those not paying the taxes that fund it. Should they still get it? If so, then what you believe in is UH for all paid by some. At least be honest.

It should be paid for by those who can afford to pay, just like those aircraft carriers you are so fond of.

Then those that don't can do without unless you're going to pay their costs. Poor don't pay for aircraft carriers fool. Income taxes they don't pay fund them.

Do you realize that a family of four doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until their gross income is $47,000? I can prove it, too.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's unlikely that his rate went up because of things he'll never use. More likely, the insurance companies are hedging their bets against the claims he was going to make they were probably planning on cheating him on.

You dumb shit, his rates went up (just like most everyone elses) to a) cover shit he doesn't need and b) cover others so they don't have to pay as much. Just what the hell do you think a subsidy is?

Actually, if you really wanted to go there, then no one would be able to get insurance. Why stop at diabetes? Why not make smokers pay more. Drinkers. The overweight?

You miss the point. It wasn't that the insurance companies were just refusing PE's, it was that htey were doing shit like claiming that acne as a teenager was a PE for the skin cancer you are getting in your 50's.

Smokers SHOULD pay more, they are a higher risk for developing diseases from smoking. Fat people SHOULD pay more, they are a higher risk of developing all types of diseases from being fat. Don't know what part of that you don't get. Smokers pay more for life insurance; according to the way this asinine law is written they shouldn't have to.

STILL haven't answered my question. Why should someone with a p/e pay the same as someone without a p/e when those with p/e's cost more to insure because they are a higher risk? Stop tap dancing around and explain that to me, Joe.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I miss the old days. I used to be the Director of Underwriting for a major HMO. I was the one that set the rates at the annual renewal. I pulled all the experience for the previous 10 months, and looked for anything that was going to turn into a catastrophic claim. For example, a person on a heart/lung transplant list was valued at about 1 1/2 million dollars. I would add that to last year's claims, say, $250,000, divided by the reciprocal of the inflation rate, say, 4%. Then, I would add our tax, expenses, profit, and divide by the reciprocal of that, say, 20%. So, assuming that the claims were as expected for the last 10 months, the formula would go like this. ((($250,000/.96)/ .80)+ $1,500,000)/$260,400 {last years premium)= needed rate increase 700%. Then, We would deliver the 700% rate increase, and watch will glee as they moved to another insurance company (if they could find one that would take them), knowing all the while that we were not going to be on the hook for the 1 1/2 million dollar heart/lung transplant.

Of course, that wasn't my only criteria for rate increases. I once delivered a 300% rate increase to a truck stop with 20 employees because they sold me tires for my car, and then refused to honor the warrantee.

 

[william the wie]

The US subsidizes wealthy countries on drug prices, which Obamacare does not address. The US also subsidizes the Defense budgets of other countries. More than all of the cost differences Joe identified are accounted for with those two accounts so why all of the extraneous BS?