I was not a student and got coverage. Ditto with my wife.

This headline was flashing all day and it might be interesting to you Obamacare nits, "Plea for More Generous Health Credit Rejected by IRS" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ed-by-irs.html

One of may sons is looking to further his schooling. He's 25 now (long story short, he played junior's in ice hockey and aged out at 21 so he got a late start on his secondary education). I was under the impression that it stopped at 25, so I was looking to see if he would still be covered under our current policy.

I wasn't, or he wasn't looking to get his own coverage. Not if it was already available to him.

what - wait - a democrat program that isn't going work the way it was planned...i am shocked.

Oh well it is just money, they can always raise taxes on the rich bastards to pay for it all!!

Most schools offer some sort of insurance to their students, although it sucks ass sometimes.

I think this can vary a lot by state and even by insurer because I think some actually provide coverage to an older age than mandated and others had holes carved out for them so they don't have to cover to the required age for a few more years.

Obviously talking to someone at the insurance company who actually knows what they are talking about is best, but we all know how hard it is to actually get someone like that on the phone. But would also try to talk to someone in the financial aid department of the college in question, because often they have a really good handle on what different students are having to do based on their circumstances.

Are you trying to imply that dems forget about the unintended consequences of most of their programs?

I do agree w/ you on the taxing of those greedy/ hard working rich people. Why should they make all the money just because they are so smart, hard working, lucky, or whatever else?

Reasonable, thoughtful people: "The US tax code is the least progressive that it's been since the 20s, while rich people have gotten far larger gains in the last decade than any of the other groups. Maybe we should tweak the tax code a little to be more in line with historical standards."

Bahbahmickey: [nonsensical hysterical drivel]

So, the brouhaha over the contraceptive stuff, like, how much of it is like, actual butthurt over money loosely connected to you paying for birth control pills of women who don't ascribe to your religious teachings, and how much of it is conservatives just being butthurt over Obamacare in general and want to do every little thing they can to stop the black president from doing a thing?

I mean, there is all kinds of idiocy over this. The owner of Hobby Lobby is suing not because he cares about normal contraception, but because he doesn't want to pay for the morning after pill, which he considers to be abortion. No, you idiot, the morning after pill is not abortifacient. Like, it's not a question of religion or morality. It's a question of, does this pill cause an abortion? And the answer is no. But apparently he's not been laughed out of court yet? And, like heaven forbid that a rape victim, or even woman who had a condom break, take one to prevent ovulation. Like, has anyone thought this through? The morning after pill doesn't cause abortions. It prevents them.

Obv answer is both wookie

Why are uninsured children at an all time high in my state when it wasnt even an issue before? It has more then doubled since we have altered our health system.

Definitely Obamacare. Which hasn't been implemented.

I'm for universal healthcare in most instances. My state already had it for children at one point. Uninsured children was the lowest in the country at one point in my state and it has approached the country average. I live in Vermont. I have had a hard time finding the information. I understand it is still the beginning of 2013. Do you understand you're a dick? You can disregard the question if you want because it was off-topic but I was talking about my state's current healthcare system. It's funny how every single person on 2+2 just can't help but jump at the chance to sarcastically demean someone.

A question to others in the thread.

My girlfriend was diagnosed with diabetes at an extremely young age. Type 1 so lifestyle and such played no role in what is basically complete shutdown of the pancreas. What will this mean for her? If she gets the flu her sugars skyrocket and become unmanageable and it means almost a week in ICU. If that happens once a year she would, without any other visits to any of the many doctors she must see, rack up about 6-8g's in medical bills. Currently she is insured but she must buy her insulin around her insurance company from Wal-Mart. Buying it on her own is 3x as cheap as through her insurance company. How will this affect her? I keep reading that it will benefit her but it seems to me it would cap the amount of care she could receive and would not even cover 1/3rd of the care she would need. I'm asking for an accurate description of how it will have an effect on us. Thanks.

Well for one thing your girlfriend will have the option of being self-employed at some point in her life, or working for a very small business that otherwise might be afraid to hire her and jack up their group rates.

U said it went up since new healthcare system implemented so he was pointing out that it wasn't implemented yet


For your gf, Obamacare gets rid of max coverages and pre-existing conditions, so she should be ecstatic...she will never have to worry about hitting a max or being denied for preexisting condition

Very small businesses don't generally know your medical history before hiring do they? Not a single one I've worked for did. I understand what you're saying I just don't think the situations actually something that happens in practice in my area so it would have no effect in those areas. From what I've seen this universal healthcare plan would put us in financial jeopardy within 1 years time. Not that the current one is any better for us. To me this just seems like a way for someone like me and her , with chronic illnesses in our mid 20's, to pay even more out. I'd like to believe that's not true. I've spent days pooring over information and it seems that there is almost no benefit for us.

okay so the caps don't count for pre-existing conditions? That is a huge benefit if they cover 90% of the cost at least. Otherwise it's just still more unpaid ER visits. What I mean is if we even have to pay 10% of total costs we just wouldn't get the coverage because even that would be too much for us to be able to live a meagerly comfortable life.

A point people are just going to have to accept is that no one is going to put there family in financial strain over a hospital bill. It just won't ever happen. No one will live leaner to put money aside to for a payment plan. Expecting people to may make sense but in practice it will NEVER happen. So we have to basically abandon that idea entirely. If tragedy strikes and debt is aquired that debt will almost always be neglected by any family below the median income for the area. No one wants to hear someone say that all people will abandon personal responsibility in this area but they would. We all know it. I for one would. It doesn't mean I'm not grateful or whatever but you do what you have to. All debts are neglected for necessities.

The most ironic thing related to plan B is that I think a lot of more recent research is showing that the morning after pill doesn't even prevent implantation of fertilized eggs like was initially claimed. It looks like its effect is pretty much entirely to prevent ovulation and thicken the mucus sperm have to swim through (exactly same as normal oral contraceptives), but apparently at some point during its development researchers overstated the "prevents implantation" aspect because it makes sense mechanistically but didnt really have much data to back up the the claim.

When you come into a thread about a national healthcare act and throw out how people are being harmed without mentioning your state or that the state changed its system then people are gonna assume you are the 14330327th person to bitch incorrectly about a plan they don't understand and that hasn't yet been implemented

I said OUR health system was altered. Pronouns generally refer to the previously stated noun in context. It's english.

Your little comment about people disagreeing w/ obamacare because he is black is ridiculous. I assume that if I wrote it that I would get a 3 day ban.

I am against men and women paying the same amount for health care. It is ridiculous that women pay less for car insurance because they drive less, but men can't pay less for health insurance for going to the doctor less. Of course birth control and plan b has something to with this sense it feels like men are paying for BC just like they are paying for other things that are covered by hlth INS for women.

Not sure how much you read on the politics forum, but it has been discussed over and over again that democrats are typically less education than repubs so lets cut these guys some slack.

I typically less education.

Couple of things:

1) Why did you come into the Obamacare thread to complain about Vermont state law?

2) What are you talking about? Vermont's health care reform bill from last year, the overhaul that created a state universal health care system, won't go into effect until 2017.

P.S. I can't find anything about Vermont experiencing an increase in uninsured children. I see some stuff about them being second best(behind Romneycared MA) in the country at having the lowest rate between 2009-2011.

It's an ambiguous pronoun. Your state had worse results in sentence one. Then you said it was correlated with changes in our (ambiguous, especially given your state is in the US and this thread is about the US act) healthcare system. It was further made ambiguous by the fact that you never even mentioned the state, so how could we comment? Not mentioning the state made it more likely that "our" was referring to US healthcare changes (again, the thread you are in). Finally, the pronoun was in a separate sentence altogether, further removing it from the original noun.

If you want people to respond properly then give necessary context like the name of the state.

It's like going into a Bulls thread and ask "how come my team's defense has gone down this year? It seems like it happened after we changed our coach." and then when someone says "chicago hasn't changed coaches" you reply with "I was talking about the lakers!"

jake, what information are you looking at? Where are you trying to learn?