THEN, if you have something stupid or rightwingy to say, go ahead.
But not until you watch this.
THEN, if you have something stupid or rightwingy to say, go ahead.
But not until you watch this.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||11/14/2013|
thanks, r5. You're right. I mean of course "breaking it down" as in explaining...
|by Anonymous||reply 7||09/27/2013|
as well they should!
|by Anonymous||reply 21||09/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 29||09/27/2013|
thanks for finding this thread. I tried searching before i started the new one.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||09/28/2013|
You are an idiot, r51.
Go re-read r31.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||09/28/2013|
r32's probably one of those people champing at the bit to invest THEIR Social Security into a 401k-like investment.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||09/28/2013|
Regarding R27's assertion that the Pubbies in the House can defund Obamacare, the reality is that they cannot. The bill actually places most of the costs in the mandatory column of the Federal budget, and even though they made a big show out of trying, even if the Senate had gone along with it and even more unlikely even if Obama had signed their CR (another cheat on the budgetary process brought to you by worthless politicians who can't do their jobs), the ACA would proceed as planned. What their 2-month budgetary trick would do is just kick the can down the road, cause havoc in the rest of the government, and end up creating an even worse mess. But that was the goal, after all, since the Pubbies have succeeded spectacularly at making people believe government is bad and can't do anything. Well, put a bunch of buffoons in charge and then act shocked -- shocked! -- when they are revealed for not knowing how to do much of anything, let alone, govern.
Canadian Ted Cruz's little sideshow was a disgrace to the Senate. These teabaggers are going to do everything they can to destroy everything we've done for the American people for the past 75 years. Just look at Texas, where teatards reign supreme: they can't even pave the roads! But they have time to make sure that when a woman wants an abortion, she has to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound regardless of need, medical advice, or free will. So much for the teatards' claims of individual liberty, freedom from government intrusion and fiscal responsibility.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||09/28/2013|
If you make $45k, then you can't afford to live in NYC or SF, period. And you certainly can't afford $2k a month in rent. You need to stop living beyond your means and move to a place that you can afford. There are many places within a few hours drive of NYC that have half the living costs of NYC.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||09/28/2013|
The government isn't capable of running a huge healthcare organization! ...except Medicare... and Medicaid ... and the Veterans healthcare plan ...and others.
But those plans aren't perfect, there's huge fraud in them! Yep, they aren't perfect. Big surprise there. While providing healthcare insurance to millions, some bad stuff happens. Just like the rest of life, they're not perfect.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||09/28/2013|
[quote]If you're under 30 and in good health you don't really need the level of coverage Obamacare requires.
I disagree. Life is a crap shoot. You never know when an accident or illness could happen. I was always very healthy, until they found the brain aneurysm.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||09/28/2013|
[quote]But it works financially because it requires people who don't need or want health insurance to purchase it.
Like all those people who pay into Social Security when they are young...
|by Anonymous||reply 72||09/28/2013|
WalMart's plan for full time employees will have to meet ACA standards.
Yes the ACA does require dependent coverage through employer based plans be extended to 26. The employee will still have to pay for the coverage. But it doesn't require parents to keep children over 18 on their plans.
I imagine that particular provision will lead to some very uncomfortable conversations this Thanksgiving. I'd be surprised to find out a majority of parents want to take on the additional financial burden of insuring their 25 year old kid.
One of the things that really pisses me off are progressives who oppose the plan because it isn't single payer and progressives who refuse to acknowledge it's not perfect but one hell of a great first step.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||09/28/2013|
I don't have kids, yet a percentage of my taxes go to fund local schools and colleges for other people's kids. I don't complain because I know that education is a vital part of a successful society.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||09/28/2013|
" In case you don't know, you can still buy old style insurance that doesn't include ACA-mandated coverage."
He doesn't know that because it's not true--ACA mandated certain benefits (unlimited wellness) as well as other provisions (keeping dependents on until age 26, for example) starting just a few months after the law was passed. All health insurance sold since has those enhanced benefits as part of the coverage.
You really should learn more what you think you know.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||09/29/2013|
damn damn damn!
|by Anonymous||reply 88||09/29/2013|
R92, you may not have children but you benefit from an educated populace.
I pay $200 a month towards my premium (I am state worker). Do you feel better now? Do you want us all to suffer or do you want to fight back for what's been lost?
|by Anonymous||reply 93||09/29/2013|
Um, I live in NYC, and I earn $45K and I have an apartment which costs $800. I can be in Manhattan in 20 minutes. It's called the boroughs.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||09/29/2013|
it's called smart.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||09/29/2013|
[quote]Clearly you have the secret to life.
I am not R94. There are bargains to be found, especially if you are a native New Yorker who either remained in or moved back to their old neighborhoods pre-gentrification. I know several people paying unbelievably low rents, $350 for Kips Bay and $375 for LIC, with a skyline view.
One guy has being living in his Manhattan apartment since 1977, the other inherited their childhood apartment in LIC, a nice large pre-war two bedroom.
My mom gets a kick out of hearing how expensive Greenpoint, Bushwick and Williamsburg have become, especially hearing about the outrageous rents on those old railroad apartments!
|by Anonymous||reply 103||09/29/2013|
[quote]So, instead of commenting on the "white board" video, or the plan in general, you'd rather talk about your specific gripes with your specific health insurance. OK....
WTF are you talking about? You are quite the school marm, aren't you?
You asked me what I think about 'Obamacare', I could have been rude and basically told you, "It does not apply to me." Which is essentially the truth.
I am self employed and rather happy with my plan. I survived cancer, I have no plans to even look into 'Obamacare'. Period. Too much on my plate: new accounts and sick elderly parents etc.
I have no plans to drop my health insurance, I basically stated it's great that people once denied health insurance can now buy it.
No you are demanding I watch a video?! I voted for the President, is that enough for you?
|by Anonymous||reply 104||09/29/2013|
[quote]That's how Europeans have 'free' health care, their taxes work for them....not for bike lanes and all the other shit Bloombucks has put my tax dollars into during his reign!
Europeans pay a lot more taxes than you do, percentage-wise, which enables their countries to not only provide universal health care but also to fund many things you'd no doubt deride, including bike lanes.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||09/29/2013|
R105, just as you can cite anecdotes about people overusing the system, I can do the opposite. I know many people who haven't seen a doctor at all for years and years. Most people I know hate to go to the doctor, and rapidly increasing co-pays and deductibles have only increased their antipathy.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||09/29/2013|
Heck, I have a decent plan by all accounts but I get so nervous about going to the doctor because I worry the insurance company will refuse to cover something.
So we get double screwed in America. Not only do we pay through the nose for health insurance, we also don't even get a guarantee of coverage for all that cost.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||09/29/2013|
Well, aren't you the clever one, R87. Perhaps if you go back and read my other posts... Oh, who am I kidding. Here, I'll type slowly so you can understand.
There were a host of laws that passed as part of the ACA, and the two that you mentioned were indeed included. However, there were a bunch of provisions that apply only to the plans in the exchanges. However, like I said, these plans will evolve over time to include them due to the competition the exchanges set up.
That said, you can most definitely still buy old style insurance. Hence, the president saying "if you like the plan you're on, you can keep it." But, please, tell my insurance company to stop haranguing me to renew my company's plan (NOW!) because it doesn't include some of the costly provisions they're happy to not provide.
Point of fact: Obamacare does not include "unlimited wellness." What it does include is one physical per year, and all of the attendant tests. That, however, is far, far away from "unlimited." I wish Obamacare did, in fact, include unlimited wellness.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||09/29/2013|
their pen was squeeky.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||09/30/2013|
r117, True Floss is evil.
So is True Yield...
|by Anonymous||reply 120||09/30/2013|
I'm intelligent and educated, but I am so freaking confused by all of this. I have no idea what we're supposed to do now. Could we just please have a national plan?
|by Anonymous||reply 122||09/30/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 130||09/30/2013|
I don't think the multi-state plan is the same as the Public Option. This multi-state plan is run by a private company. Unless I'm corrected I assume BCBS is a for-profit organization.
The Public Option as discussed a few years ago would have been run by the government and be like Medicare. It might even have taken the form of letting younger people buy-in to Medicare. The government already runs Medicare, Medicaid, the VA medical plan, and others, so it has experience with this, and does it well. These plans have very low overhead. And people with these plans live them.
One thing I liked about the Public Option was getting the private sector out of the business of making money by denying people health care they need.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||10/01/2013|
R122, you forgot to mention that you're good looking, too. 😜
|by Anonymous||reply 132||10/01/2013|
[quote]We're now going to be able to get the same health insurance that our Congressman have been enjoying for decades.
Isn't the big difference that congressmen don't pay a dime into their premiums?
These jerks make $175,000 a year and receive free health insurance? They don't even work a full year.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||10/01/2013|
No the difference is congress get a subsidy of 12-22K per year for health insurance. Under ACA that goes away and they get the same options we get.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||10/01/2013|
Why should we? What's wrong with the website is pretty easily fixed and has little to do with the success or failure of the program itself. Out here in the real world, the program has been pretty successful thus far, with a greater variety of plans and lower prices than was first estimated.
And then, of course, there's the example of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the more recent example of Medicare, Part D, all of which had massive problems on initial rollout and all of which went on to great success.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||10/27/2013|
Yes, R137, really. You're actually citing "the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee"? ROFL...
|by Anonymous||reply 138||11/01/2013|
you wish r139.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||11/01/2013|
Clearly, r142, you don't understand the rules of the Affordable Care Act. Under it, insurance companies are not allowed to simply maximize profits for the benefit of their shareholders.
There is also no chance in the world single payer would have had the votes. Are you really suggesting that Obama should have started the process fighting a fight he knew he couldn't win?
Maybe America wouldn't surprise you so much if you educated yourself to reality a bit.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||11/01/2013|
Do you have an actual argument in there, r144?
I don't understand your connection between the ACA's regulations on insurance companies' profits and those other unrelated things.
Clearly you do thing Obama should fight losing battles though. Which makes you an idiot. Because fighting and dying on single-payer would have left more people in much worse situations than they are now with the ACA.
Yes, the Obama administration did a very lousy job messaging. They should have been clearer that to keep your current healthcare it had to meet minimum standards. They also should have been clearer that any change to existing programs immediately made them unavailable for grandfathering in. But the fact remains, more people will be better off under the ACA by a country mile.
So what exactly should I educate myself about? You make no actual points that could increase my knowledge as far as I can see. On the other hand, you have shown ignorance about several facts, as I have pointed out.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||11/01/2013|
Care to point out my abusive language?
And while you are at explain to me what possible debate or discussion would have led to single-payer. Be sure to explain how anything would have persuaded the necessary Senators.
The ACA is not what I would have wanted. But it was the best that could have been done in the world we actually live in.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||11/01/2013|
r148 not only are you an idiot, but you are also quite odd.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||11/02/2013|
still trolling, r151?
|by Anonymous||reply 152||11/02/2013|
Actually, r149 isn't the same person who called you an idiot before. That would be me.
The ACA is not a disaster. The website launch was a disaster. No one disputes the latter. So grow up, r151.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||11/02/2013|
If being called an idiot on an anonymous gossipboard know for snark is "abusive" I would suggest Mr. ACA is a Disaster might want to take his schtick elsewhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||11/02/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 158||11/02/2013|
r161, you are busy bumping threads this morning with your ignorant screed aren't you?
Are you even American?
|by Anonymous||reply 162||11/09/2013|
It matters. You don't know what you are talking about.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||11/10/2013|
Obama lied? How horrifying that he said people could keep their insurance, and then insurance companies cancelled crappy individual policies - which in 95% of cases were temporary until the individuals could get covered by their employers. Yes, Obama is the bad guy.
It's curious that "lying" was never mentioned when the topic was death panels or secret armies or socialist medicine. Then, the phrase was "some say."
|by Anonymous||reply 165||11/10/2013|
You mean the horror stories that have all been debunked? That same thing is going to happen elsewhere? Fox News is going to trot people out and lie about their healthcare? OK.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||11/10/2013|
You are insane, r167.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||11/10/2013|
Massachussetts isn't complaining. You naysayers are nothing more than political tools.
|by Anonymous||reply 171||11/14/2013|
Lets face it. Neither side will listen to the other. Everyone is right- everyone is wrong!
We are dangerously close to the point of not being able to fix this country. Everyone is so vitriolic and self serving anymore.
POLITICS IS THE DEVIL! (to paraphrase the "waterboy's mama)
|by Anonymous||reply 172||11/14/2013|