Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court

09-26-2013 , 11:27 PM
If they are so aure it is going to flop so bad shouldn't the play to get it enacted fast so the republicans can victory dance? I think they are worried it will work well.
09-27-2013 , 12:11 AM
Because reasons
09-27-2013 , 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Get health insurance, develop bone cancer, pocket the savings.
I used Obamacare to get insurance a year ago. I just want to know if I should get better insurance now.

Hey, can I get on my mom's work plan now?
09-27-2013 , 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon
Let's backtrack:

I brought up the topic of Obamacare failing.

You say "But UHC hasn't failed in other countries".

I say Obamacare is not UHC. Therefore, the success or failure of UHC is irrelevant to the success or failure of Obamacare.

The majority of the public already hates Obamacare. If this flops, the Republicans gain credibility and Democrats lose credibility. There is still a strong population of non-socialists in this country -- people who want less government intrusion in all aspects of their lives.

Of course, if the free ponies only attract more people to vote Democrat, then we are ****ed.
You asserted that Obamacare's failure would lead to a crippling blow to the entitlement state.

I was arguing that won't happen. Obamacare failing may lead to a loss of confidence in Obama and the Democratic party, but that will hardly stop entitlements. For christ sake, the Republicans enacted Medicare Part D. No way do the Republicans dare cut back on that front.

My point in bring up UHC was that hard core supporters of the ACA have no reason to question whether what they want is doable. Namely providing health care to all. Whether that is single payer UHC or an individual mandate is meaningless. Systems that provide what they want do work, so they have no reason to question if what they want is even doable.
09-27-2013 , 02:26 AM
I guess what I really want to know is will my coverage cover Jared Tendler and if not, what do I need to switch to?
09-27-2013 , 02:36 AM
I, for one, would refuse to pay half as much for government health insurance instead of buying equivalent private insurance.
09-27-2013 , 02:36 AM
That post is 4th on Google jared tendler health insurance lol
09-27-2013 , 05:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
I used Obamacare to get insurance a year ago. I just want to know if I should get better insurance now.

Hey, can I get on my mom's work plan now?
Yeah, you should probably get new insurance if you're not covered though work. With the individual mandate in place, plans are likely to be cheaper. Also, you have to buy though the exchange to get subsidies.

If you're 26 or younger, you can get coverage though your Mom.
09-27-2013 , 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
I'm a 20something middle class American making over 47k a year, will let you know how my premiums change raradevils. I'm currently shelling out $50/month, will make sure to blame Obama when it EXPLOOOOOOOODES next month
It's not just the premiums, it's also the out of pocket expenses should you ever require health coverage.

Please do keep me updated.
09-27-2013 , 06:47 AM
rara- Suddenly you're concerned about people's out of pocket expenses? LOL.
09-27-2013 , 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon
Let's backtrack:

I brought up the topic of Obamacare failing.

You say "But UHC hasn't failed in other countries".

I say Obamacare is not UHC. Therefore, the success or failure of UHC is irrelevant to the success or failure of Obamacare.
Similar systems to Obamacare operate in Switzerland and the strange foreign land of "Massachusetts". They work fine.

Quote:
The majority of the public already hates Obamacare. If this flops, the Republicans gain credibility and Democrats lose credibility. There is still a strong population of non-socialists in this country -- people who want less government intrusion in all aspects of their lives.

Of course, if the free ponies only attract more people to vote Democrat, then we are ****ed.
For one thing, something like 15-20% of the population opposes Obamacare FROM THE LEFT. They want socialism!

For another, lol. No, we aren't. Like I keep telling you, Jim, civic policy is clearly too complicated for you, and that's fine. You just gotta sit this one out and let the grownups handle it.
09-27-2013 , 06:58 AM
I haven't heard any updates on my Medicare part B yet.
[price chg's., etc.]
09-27-2013 , 07:02 AM
Regular Medicare is pretty much unaffected by Obamacare
09-27-2013 , 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
rara- Suddenly you're concerned about people's out of pocket expenses? LOL.
I've been opposed to this from the get go, one being the cost. I would include out of pocket expense as a cost wouldn't you?
09-27-2013 , 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon
I thought Medicare was being expanded for free HC for poors? Isn't that where the 30 million uninsured are going?
^^^

Jim this was the single biggest domestic story of 2009-2010, and is in the news AGAIN.
09-27-2013 , 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
I've been opposed to this from the get go, one being the cost. I would include out of pocket expense as a cost wouldn't you?
You're right that you opposed this from the start, but who do you think you're fooling with this "reason" bull****? You opposed it and now you think out of pocket expenses might be going up(they won't be! remember, the point of this bill was to give a bunch of uninsured people health insurance!) and so that's a bad thing you can say about Obamacare.

Learning about the actual changes to out of pocket expenses will not cause you to re-evaluate your opposition to the bill.
09-27-2013 , 07:29 AM
Earlier in this thread, for example, you triumphantly posted an article about a hospital laying people off because they expect Obamacare to reduce medical expenditures. IOW, that article was empirical evidence that your alleged "costs" concern was baseless.

You posted that article in an attempt to blame Obamacare for job losses.
09-27-2013 , 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Earlier in this thread, for example, you triumphantly posted an article about a hospital laying people off because they expect Obamacare to reduce medical expenditures. IOW, that article was empirical evidence that your alleged "costs" concern was baseless.

You posted that article in an attempt to blame Obamacare for job losses.
This is called the Affordable Care Act. It's only going to be that for a select few. The poor were already receiving health care. So this wasn't about giving them access. After this is fully enacted not everyone is going to be covered so it wasn't about making sure everyone gets health care. This is and always was about wealth redistribution masked as health care.
09-27-2013 , 07:57 AM
Looooooooooooooool there are definitely reasons to oppose ACA and laws in ACA. Portraying it the way you do......flat out wrong.

We are just going to pretend that the poor and people with pre-existing conditions had full access to healthcare? Oh, that's right, they could either die or pay $10 a month to settle their bill and hospitals would just be OK with that

Or that you'd be OK with UHC instead of this because everyone would be covered?

Rrrrrrrraaaaaaaarrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
09-27-2013 , 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Caveat
If you are a pro poker player, i.e. no employer, and you gamble and don't get insurance and then get a long-term illness, are you screwed? What's the process at that point? I heard individual plans that aren't offered by employers can upcharge you for pre-existing conditions.
Bump. Anyone know?
09-27-2013 , 09:04 AM
You can enroll during the next open enrollment period and the upcharge is capped AFAIK.
09-27-2013 , 09:16 AM
I feel like whether or not you're reporting your income would play a large part in that choice to not get insurance.
09-27-2013 , 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon
Obamacare is not UHC.
True, and it was never sold as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon
It's a failed blend of UHC and what we have now.
Not even implemented yet.

Failed.
09-27-2013 , 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
It's not just the premiums, it's also the out of pocket expenses should you ever require health coverage.

Please do keep me updated.
So first you tell us that if someone can't afford it, they shouldn't get it.

Now you're complaining about "out of pocket expenses?"

You literally make no sense itt.

Last edited by Namath12; 09-27-2013 at 09:40 AM. Reason: nm fly covered it
09-27-2013 , 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
rara- Suddenly you're concerned about people? LOL.
FYP

Let's not forget:

Quote:
I make 32,000 a year. I get cancer at 40. Bill is 350,000. Explain how I saved that money.

rara's response:

Quote:
If you elect to have treatment for it.

      
m