Read Em and Weep

[Will Robinson]

...
I am somewhat taken aback at both you and TC in your choices, and might just be seeing the regional differences in available plans. ..

Unfortunately that is the best I could get after shopping around and we have no medical history that should put us in a higher risk catagory.
I get most of my insurance needs through USAA and they don't underwrite health coverage directly, they directed me to their partner for that, Assurant. They were as bad as BlueCross and any other choice available.

...And, Will, given your example, if your numbers are correct, you probably would save money ditching the coverage, unless you faced something sudden and very pricey, in which case you could get burned. Is that really the best price you can get in your local market, because that price for that high a deductable seems like outright robbery, and if anything, should give you reason to support the idea of cradle-to-grave Medicare as VERY cost-effective.

I did ditch it over a year ago so right now we are about 15,000 to the good before this years penalty which is marginal in comparison.
I hope we aren't being set up to be burned....according to Obama I can buy coverage anytime I want, even if I do it from the hospital bed after being told I have a million dollar disease. I'd like to thank all my fellow Americans for helping pay for that too!

Cradle to Grave medicare is great if it is managed by people who are held to the law...not people who exempt themselves from the coverage and the law....that is like asking me to have Bernie Madoff manage my retirement plan from his prison cell.
But we have no choice, that is their plan, to create the crisis we are getting into now and then they will 'save us' from it with medicare as the 'solution'. Soon enough our hospitals will be staffed with bureaucrats in doctors clothing with all the ambition and compassion of the lady at the department of motor vehicles only with a scalpel in her hand!

[woodchip]

From your link:

"About 23 million people will still lack health insurance, one third of whom will be undocumented residents who are not eligible for coverage under the law. "

So what about the 16 million who are legal? And why are they not covered? Wasn't the whole idea of Obamacare to cover those who had no insurance?

as I said, the law isn't perfect, and that is the number that are estimated to still refuse coverage, or(more numerous) not apply for coverage out of ignorance, etc. A lot of homeless folks out there who don't have coverage, yet are still eligible.

So after all the ballyhoo that the new health care bill was going to cover those that had no insurance...they will still be without insurance.

[callmeslick]

From your link:

"About 23 million people will still lack health insurance, one third of whom will be undocumented residents who are not eligible for coverage under the law. "

So what about the 16 million who are legal? And why are they not covered? Wasn't the whole idea of Obamacare to cover those who had no insurance?

as I said, the law isn't perfect, and that is the number that are estimated to still refuse coverage, or(more numerous) not apply for coverage out of ignorance, etc. A lot of homeless folks out there who don't have coverage, yet are still eligible.

So after all the ballyhoo that the new health care bill was going to cover those that had no insurance...they will still be without insurance.

actually, it was made very clear before the bill was voted on that 15-25 million people would still lack insurance, as opposed to the current level of 40 million or so.

[Tunnelcat]

Also I believe demand for care will increase among those now having insurance, where most have gone without a great deal of care, regardless of how much ER abuse there is, because the ER does not provide any long term care, only emergencies. (you can’t go to the ER for cirrhosis of the liver)

Demand will increase disproportionally IMHO because when you force people to have something like health care…they are sure as hell going to get their money’s worth…I know I sure as hell will, and I have a long backlog of things to be taken care of.

Not necessarily. I avoid the doctor like the plague unless absolutely necessary and I'm very careful about causing myself harm in my everyday activities. But accidents DO happen, can't always avoid that (I try ), so THAT'S why it's nice to have some coverage if and when I do injure myself. If people start going to the doctor MORE because they have insurance, they're either crazy masochists or they like wasting their time waiting in doctor's offices for half their lives.

But if most people had insurance, I'm guessing that they would be going to their regular doctor instead of the very expensive and overcrowded emergency rooms.

[woodchip]

From your link:

"About 23 million people will still lack health insurance, one third of whom will be undocumented residents who are not eligible for coverage under the law. "

So what about the 16 million who are legal? And why are they not covered? Wasn't the whole idea of Obamacare to cover those who had no insurance?

as I said, the law isn't perfect, and that is the number that are estimated to still refuse coverage, or(more numerous) not apply for coverage out of ignorance, etc. A lot of homeless folks out there who don't have coverage, yet are still eligible.

So after all the ballyhoo that the new health care bill was going to cover those that had no insurance...they will still be without insurance.

actually, it was made very clear before the bill was voted on that 15-25 million people would still lack insurance, as opposed to the current level of 40 million or so.

So now the poor, besides still not having insurance, will have to pay a fine for not having any? Lovely

[callmeslick]

um, wrong in so many different ways, woody, but that's to be expected when one twists words until one's own narrow view is visible....

[CobGobbler]

I say we try the GOP idea of a better health care system: Don't get sick.

Honestly, for as much bull★■◆● as you guys spew about the ACA, at least Obama was willing to do something about the despicable health system that we have. Perfect legislation? Hell no, far from it. But it's a better start than those that believe simply letting people buy insurance across state lines will magically fix all these problems.

Aren't you all about personal responsibility woodchip? ★■◆● man, I figured you and your ilk here would be jacking off all over this bill. It's weird that someone can be penalized for not buying something they can't afford. Little bit of crazy math there.

I just like that your side is forced to defend that industry. Those people take honest citizens' money for years and then refuse to help them when they're down. Really shows the true character of people. I'd still drink moonshine with ya, but I wouldn't trust you with much else.

[woodchip]

um, wrong in so many different ways, woody, but that's to be expected when one twists words until one's own narrow view is visible....

How is stating reality twisting words? If I am wrong and 16 million Americans will still not be covered and have to pay a penalty to boot then show me instead of saying I'm wrong.

[woodchip]

I say we try the GOP idea of a better health care system: Don't get sick.

Honestly, for as much bull★■◆● as you guys spew about the ACA, at least Obama was willing to do something about the despicable health system that we have. Perfect legislation? Hell no, far from it. But it's a better start than those that believe simply letting people buy insurance across state lines will magically fix all these problems.

Aren't you all about personal responsibility woodchip? ★■◆● man, I figured you and your ilk here would be jacking off all over this bill. It's weird that someone can be penalized for not buying something they can't afford. Little bit of crazy math there.

I just like that your side is forced to defend that industry. Those people take honest citizens' money for years and then refuse to help them when they're down. Really shows the true character of people. I'd still drink moonshine with ya, but I wouldn't trust you with much else.

So when employers dump their coverage for their employees because it is now cheaper to do so, and all those same employees go out to buy insurance with the least cost to be 20k a year, how is this better than the old system? And find where I defended the "old" system.

[callmeslick]

um, wrong in so many different ways, woody, but that's to be expected when one twists words until one's own narrow view is visible....

How is stating reality twisting words? If I am wrong and 16 million Americans will still not be covered and have to pay a penalty to boot then show me instead of saying I'm wrong.

because,as I stated above,the bulk of those who remain uninsured are eligible for Medicaid and don't choose to sign up. No penalty would be assessed to them under the bill. Like Cob stated, it's amazing how much you all dance around to crap on a bill that at least ATTEMPTS to address a problem.

[callmeslick]

So when employers dump their coverage for their employees because it is now cheaper to do so, and all those same employees go out to buy insurance with the least cost to be 20k a year, how is this better than the old system? And find where I defended the "old" system.

but there is ZERO evidence that either of those things will happen. You are making up strawmen that fit your argument. I already showed that no one is going to pay 20K per year on the low end, and thus far, no large scale indication that companies will dump coverage.

[woodchip]

um, wrong in so many different ways, woody, but that's to be expected when one twists words until one's own narrow view is visible....

How is stating reality twisting words? If I am wrong and 16 million Americans will still not be covered and have to pay a penalty to boot then show me instead of saying I'm wrong.

because,as I stated above,the bulk of those who remain uninsured are eligible for Medicaid and don't choose to sign up. No penalty would be assessed to them under the bill. Like Cob stated, it's amazing how much you all dance around to crap on a bill that at least ATTEMPTS to address a problem.

And didn't the poor have access to Medicaid prior to obama care? And yes, with your philosophy anything tried is good even when it ain't.

[callmeslick]

And didn't the poor have access to Medicaid prior to obama care? And yes, with your philosophy anything tried is good even when it ain't.

but, had you read the link above, you would see that Medicaid eligibility is widely expanded under the ACA. Bottom line with the uninsured still out there is mainly around getting people to both realize they can get free coverage, and getting them to sign up for it. Yet another reason cradle to grave Medicare would be superior. All Americans would be covered at birth and for life, with less changing and less paperwork.

[woodchip]

So when employers dump their coverage for their employees because it is now cheaper to do so, and all those same employees go out to buy insurance with the least cost to be 20k a year, how is this better than the old system? And find where I defended the "old" system.

but there is ZERO evidence that either of those things will happen. You are making up strawmen that fit your argument. I already showed that no one is going to pay 20K per year on the low end, and thus far, no large scale indication that companies will dump coverage.

Zero evidence? What are you? A idiot savant version of Rip Van Winkle? Just try reading some news sources that show employers are either making employees part time workers or just canceling their insurance benefits all togeather:

"Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours -- something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers."

So is Walmart a strawman or is it you who's head is made out of straw?

As to showing me, you have yet to show where the paybacks are to reduce the burden. And no I am not going to do the work for you.

[woodchip]

And didn't the poor have access to Medicaid prior to obama care? And yes, with your philosophy anything tried is good even when it ain't.

but, had you read the link above, you would see that Medicaid eligibility is widely expanded under the ACA. Bottom line with the uninsured still out there is mainly around getting people to both realize they can get free coverage, and getting them to sign up for it. Yet another reason cradle to grave Medicare would be superior. All Americans would be covered at birth and for life, with less changing and less paperwork.

And less choice. And perhaps less quality.

[Spidey]

My gut feeling is, if a young healthy person is choosing not to buy insurance, then the obvious choice will now be to take the much much lower cost penalty, and remain un-insured.

*In response to who will remain un-insured.

[woodchip]

Like Will pointed out, you can break your leg, get insurance, get treated and then drop the policy. I'm not sure how that is going to save us money and get the 16 trillion dollar deficit to come down.

[callmeslick]

"Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours -- something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers."

So is Walmart a strawman or is it you who's head is made out of straw?

As to showing me, you have yet to show where the paybacks are to reduce the burden. And no I am not going to do the work for you.

they were in one of the links I sent you. And, didn't Walmart already limit coverage to part-time employees? Further, where does that article cite that they are doing this because of the healthcare law whatsoever?

[Spidey]

No, I don’t believe that’s actually going to work Woody...

Take someone with pre existing conditions for example…first there is a waiting period to receive treatment, then there is the deductable…

So waiting to get sick, then getting insurance might be a really bad idea.

[callmeslick]

Like Will pointed out, you can break your leg, get insurance, get treated and then drop the policy. I'm not sure how that is going to save us money and get the 16 trillion dollar deficit to come down.

actually, there is little likelihood that very many people will operate that way,mostly because it is bad personal healthcare. Also, I'd be pretty certain that NO insurer will, in the example you give, treat you for a trauma that occured while uninsured, so you'd be paying to get the break fixed, and then paying penalty after it heals. Kind of a dumbass move, I'd say. Once again, you give examples of Cobs truth above: you set up dubious little hypothetical examples, whine about the deficit(when the bill is,by non-partisan analysis, going to drop 1 trillion off the deficit), and further, cite the word 'deficit' when you should use the word 'debt' to reflect reality.

edit--thanks Spidey for getting more specific about what a dumb plan that was for personal finances.

[woodchip]

"Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours -- something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers."

So is Walmart a strawman or is it you who's head is made out of straw?

As to showing me, you have yet to show where the paybacks are to reduce the burden. And no I am not going to do the work for you.

they were in one of the links I sent you. And, didn't Walmart already limit coverage to part-time employees? Further, where does that article cite that they are doing this because of the healthcare law whatsoever?

No:

Employees hired after Feb. 1, 2012, who fail to average the magic 30-hours per week requiring a company to provide a healthcare benefit, will lose their healthcare benefits on the following January. Part-time workers hired after Jan. 15, 2011, but before Feb. 1, 2012, will be able to hang onto their Walmart health care benefit if they work at least 24 hours a week.

Anyone hired before 2011 will not be cut off from the company provided health insurance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... are-costs/

It appears Walmart, while a big supporter of Obamacare, was so knowing full well they could substantially reduce insurance cost by letting the taxpayer foot the bill

[callmeslick]

it 'appears'? This is all you have? Seriously, woody, it's a real reach you're doing here, and really proving nothing, other that the usual, "Obama did it, I don't like it, wahhh-wahhh-wahhhh!"

[woodchip]

it 'appears'? This is all you have? Seriously, woody, it's a real reach you're doing here, and really proving nothing, other that the usual, "Obama did it, I don't like it, wahhh-wahhh-wahhhh!"

And yet another totally brain dead unsupported reply. Oh and if you read the Forbes link you will find I am not the only that supports the appearance. So keep making childish replies as I'm sure it is effective on your other boards.

[callmeslick]

come back in 2015 or so, and we'll see how it's worked out. Until then, you are simply speculating and whining in equal measures.

[woodchip]

Whining? Where? Perhaps if you learn to to post more like a adult we could have a reasonable and respectful debate.

[callmeslick]

Whining? Where? Perhaps if you learn to to post more like a adult we could have a reasonable and respectful debate.

you lost that chance a while ago when you basically came on here and lied, putting words in my mouth that weren't true. You couldn't have a reasonable debate with anyone, woody, you just like to whine. The elections over, the ACA is law, Obama is the President. Get over it.

[woodchip]

Ah yes, just like a good Trotskyite we should lay down and accept everything thrown at us. May be acceptable to you but not to me.

[Will Robinson]

... the ACA is law, Obama is the President. Get over it.

As is the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and in McDonald v. Chicago...but that hasn't stopped you from ranting on about changing things.

[CobGobbler]

Funny that you bring up Heller. Yeah the SC decided people have the legitimate right to own a gun, but they also said that it was not an unlimited right. Just as people don't have the right to yell fire in a room and endanger other people, there are restrictions to gun ownership as well. I wish I was a psychologist because I'd love to know what it is about guns that give people such hard-ons. Hell, my father had a ton of guns that I used to shoot as kid (my favorite was the musket) and I used to live in some pretty rough areas but I didn't live my life in a state of perpetual fear like so many of you.

[woodchip]

Tell me Cob, just what makes you think we own guns because we live in perpetual fear? Most of my firearms are for hunting. The only one for defense is my CZ 97B. I suspect Zurich, I've been in a lot more "unsafe" areas than you have and never had a firearm. So why don't you get off your high horse that somehow owning firearms means one is fearful. The only peeps I see who seem to have fear are those who are anti-gun.

[CobGobbler]

I'm not sure what Zurich, Switzerland has to do with anything but ok.

I have no issue with hunting weapons. It's a sport, like any other, I may not participate in it but I certainly have no issue with what other people like to do. But an AR15 is not the same thing as a hunting rifle or a shotgun for game birds. I have no qualms with any of that. But what about the people that carry pistols on them at all times? Are they in a perpetual state of hunting or are they afraid of the boogeyman on every street corner?

All the people that went and stocked up on guns and ammo after election in 2008, what were they afraid of? Never once did candidate Obama talk about gun control, nor did it ever come up during his first term, but once he was reelected all the crazies had to go out and load up. The people that feel the big bad government is going to personally knock on every door and take their guns are just as nuts as the 9/11 truthers, the birthers, westboro church people, and every other nutty group in this country.

[Top Gun]

Honestly, the fact that people went out and bought more guns in droves after what happened in Newtown is more of a damning statement on American gun culture than anything I could come up with on my own.

[woodchip]

I'm not sure what Zurich, Switzerland has to do with anything but ok.

Because you said early on you were a poster here and moved with a new handle. You post exactly like Zuruck (sorry misspelled Zuruck for Zurich )does

I have no issue with hunting weapons. It's a sport, like any other, I may not participate in it but I certainly have no issue with what other people like to do. But an AR15 is not the same thing as a hunting rifle or a shotgun for game birds. I have no qualms with any of that.

What makes you think the AR15 does not make for a fine hunting rifle? It is very accurate (with the right barrel ) and comes in various calibers.

But what about the people that carry pistols on them at all times? Are they in a perpetual state of hunting or are they afraid of the boogeyman on every street corner?

So you think it makes sense to keep it at home? Tell that to people who are grateful that they did carry as this man exemplifies:

"Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women's basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.

Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.

One of the attackers was found dead in the median on Lafayette Boulevard, and the other was taken to a local hospital, according to police sources."

All the people that went and stocked up on guns and ammo after election in 2008, what were they afraid of? Never once did candidate Obama talk about gun control, nor did it ever come up during his first term, but once he was reelected all the crazies had to go out and load up. The people that feel the big bad government is going to personally knock on every door and take their guns are just as nuts as the 9/11 truthers, the birthers, westboro church people, and every other nutty group in this country.

Don't remember a mad rush to buy guns in 2008 but Obama sure has triggered the rush this time.

[woodchip]

Honestly, the fact that people went out and bought more guns in droves after what happened in Newtown is more of a damning statement on American gun culture than anything I could come up with on my own.

No, whats damning is people like Camelsdick from the liberal American culture running to jump on the ban guns bandwagon before the little kids bodies had even reached room temperature. That is just about the sickest use of a tragedy I can think of.

[Will Robinson]

Funny that you bring up Heller. Yeah the SC decided people have the legitimate right to own a gun, but they also said that it was not an unlimited right. Just as people don't have the right to yell fire in a room and endanger other people, there are restrictions to gun ownership as well.

Yes and that "legitimate right" is not, and never was, for sporting or hunting purposes. I'd bet that even in their wisdom and foresight to list the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of putting down tyranny they never would have imagined a need to protect the ability to hunt and shoot for sport!
I understand there are restrictions and don't have a problem with them as long as they don't infringe on my right to keep and bear the weapons. Many of the recent suggested restrictions are designed to eliminate them completely. That is my problem.

I wish I was a psychologist because I'd love to know what it is about guns that give people such hard-ons. Hell, my father had a ton of guns that I used to shoot as kid (my favorite was the musket) and I used to live in some pretty rough areas but I didn't live my life in a state of perpetual fear like so many of you.

Fear?!? What do I have to be afraid of, I have an evil semi-auto 9mm in my pocket?
I have it with me always unless I'm in the shower or going into a place that prohibits it....see....restrictions, I comply and don't complain because those restrictions don't keep me from being able to keep and bear the weapon on a whole.

I used to rarely carry one and they lived in my safe, things have changed.

Two nights ago, my wife and I were alone watching TV, someone tried to open our front door, not knocked...tried to open it.... and they ran off when I went to the door. I had the pistol in my hand before I completed the second step toward the door. If they had kicked the door in I would have barely had time to get it aimed in their direction before they stepped through the door. Keeping it somewhere else doesn't work for home invasion.
No one was in danger of me shooting them unless they were putting us in imminent mortal danger, no adrenalin, no shaky hands, no target fixation, etc. I've run the drill a thousand times. I was confident and prepared. They ran off and if it was a dry run hopefully they will have moved on to another target. If not I hope I'm home when they come back. If I could carry a swat team in my pocket I'd give you my 9mm...

[Will Robinson]

I'm not sure what Zurich, Switzerland has to do with anything but ok.

Because you said early on you were a poster here and moved with a new handle. You post exactly like Zuruck (sorry misspelled Zuruck for Zurich )does. ..

I thought cobgobbler was Adam, worked in a brokerage house, I think his first alias was 'meatpuppet'.... also a musician with a fetish for asian girls...used to post drunk sometimes, funny sometimes crude... basic all american city guy.

[CobGobbler]

Nobody alive has any idea what they really intended with the 2nd amendment. I'd say it was more of a mixture of personal protection given the hostile nature of much of the country in the early days and the whole tyranny bit. Will, no one is proposing to take away all guns, I can't figure why none of you people seem to understand that. So you can't buy a AR-15, so friggen what? Aren't there hundreds of other types of guns you can buy? Why is there this incessant need for this one type of weapon that has only one true purpose?

Best weapon for home protection is a shotgun. Out and about is a pistol. I just don't understand why you guys say restricting one type of weapon means you're losing them all. No one here is doing house to house sweeps...get real. I'm amazed, I've lived over thirty years in some really shitty neighborhoods and yet I've seen multiple people post on here than they've had near encounters in the last few weeks. How about you move to a nicer area? Either you're lying or you need to get out of the slums.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Don't be naive, Cob. Taking away ALL guns is exactly what's on the agenda, ultimately. It has already been done in various countries. The U.N. has a statue with a Dirty Harry revolver tied in a knot. Not an AK-47, a revolver (that's 6 shots, most generally, for anyone who thinks that limited capacity magazines are the end of the line)! Also, "let them eat cake move" isn't always a realistic solution.

[callmeslick]

The people that feel the big bad government is going to personally knock on every door and take their guns are just as nuts as the 9/11 truthers, the birthers, westboro church people, and every other nutty group in this country.

it's true.....you know, today someone sent me one of those humorous placards on Facebook. It read:

You want to talk about mental health and violence? Let's start with that paranoid delusion of yours that your gun is going to help you overthrow the government.

[flip]

Well, banning guns is kinda like quitting smoking. As long as you go cold turkey you are alright, but as soon as you smoke that first one, there goes the whole pack