(01-03-2019 12:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 10:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:46 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 12:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And because Obamacare is crap that she decided to go the COBRA route.

More BS from Owl#’s

Are you on an Obamacare policy?

she already had approvals, met deductibles, etc with her current insurance provider, so moving to a different insurer logically made no sense for a couple of hundred dollars per month. i fail to see how this is a problem with the ACA... it would be a similar problem if she had changed jobs and changed insurance providers.

She was a few weeks away from the end of the year. If the Obamacare policies were good, she could have taken cobra for 4 weeks while her deductibles were already met, then jumped on Obamacare at the start of the year.

She didnt, because she probably didnt have thousands laying around for deductibles that the Obamacare policies would require. Also, she probably wanted a chance to live. And that chance was far greater on her existing policy.

which specific obamamcare policies are you referring?

It would be much easier to pay the $550 month than it would be to try to get on Obamacare policy in short notice.

Also, you cannot just hop onto an Obamacare policy at anytime at get monthly premium assistance, you can only do that during open enrollment. She did experiencing a job change which would open up enrollment for her with subsidy but only for 60 days I believe.

Since the termination occurred at the end of the year it would be foolish have an Obamacare policy for 1 month. Since the COBRA premium wasnt that bad in comparison to the market at large, why not stay on it for 2019. Then if no other jobs open up this year, she can get on her parents for 2020.

If you dont expect to stay on Obamacare long term it SUCKS trying to figure out your subsidy as you have to guess your income. Guess to little and you dont the right amount of assistance and may have to pay full price. Guess to much and you are going to have a YUGEEE tax bill at the end of the year.

It sucks she got fired, it really does. But in terms of insurance, she is rather fortunate. It could have been much much worse for her if those COBRA premiums were what mine were listed as

(01-03-2019 12:22 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 10:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:46 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  More BS from Owl#’s

Are you on an Obamacare policy?

she already had approvals, met deductibles, etc with her current insurance provider, so moving to a different insurer logically made no sense for a couple of hundred dollars per month. i fail to see how this is a problem with the ACA... it would be a similar problem if she had changed jobs and changed insurance providers.

She was a few weeks away from the end of the year. If the Obamacare policies were good, she could have taken cobra for 4 weeks while her deductibles were already met, then jumped on Obamacare at the start of the year.

She didnt, because she probably didnt have thousands laying around for deductibles that the Obamacare policies would require. Also, she probably wanted a chance to live. And that chance was far greater on her existing policy.

which specific obamamcare policies are you referring?

The specific ones she avoided like the plague.

(01-01-2019 01:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The real reason I posted it was I hope this goes viral and Sinclair is publicly shamed into getting this girl health insurance. You won’t get stories like this on Fox News.

A) I find this sort of thing despicable and hope that Sinclair is shamed into doing something.


B) Why would FoxNews report on something like this? It's not of national importance. Yes it sucks and is awful, but not of national importance and not worthy of national news coverage.

(01-03-2019 12:31 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 01:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The real reason I posted it was I hope this goes viral and Sinclair is publicly shamed into getting this girl health insurance. You won’t get stories like this on Fox News.

A) I find this sort of thing despicable and hope that Sinclair is shamed into doing something.


B) Why would FoxNews report on something like this? It's not of national importance. Yes it sucks and is awful, but not of national importance and not worthy of national news coverage.

bit Pandas having sex....... is. Yes, they have done those. or the goto Teachers having sex with students. Plenty of things Fox News does to distract... I will find a funny youtube on it. My side has done some homework on Fox News and how they manipulate you guys.

(01-03-2019 12:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:22 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 10:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are you on an Obamacare policy?

she already had approvals, met deductibles, etc with her current insurance provider, so moving to a different insurer logically made no sense for a couple of hundred dollars per month. i fail to see how this is a problem with the ACA... it would be a similar problem if she had changed jobs and changed insurance providers.

She was a few weeks away from the end of the year. If the Obamacare policies were good, she could have taken cobra for 4 weeks while her deductibles were already met, then jumped on Obamacare at the start of the year.

She didnt, because she probably didnt have thousands laying around for deductibles that the Obamacare policies would require. Also, she probably wanted a chance to live. And that chance was far greater on her existing policy.

which specific obamamcare policies are you referring?

The specific ones she avoided like the plague.

Any insurance company is going to have a specific network of providers and changing insurers might also mean significantly higher costs for out of network providers.

So again, explain to how the ACA impacted her decision.

BTW.....

If Mach were King we all would pay a national 3 % sales tax for basic health care and you could get a private health care plan like MediCare B. No one would be fired for having cancer and then having to worry about where money for treatment would come from.

(01-03-2019 12:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  BTW.....

If Mach were King we all would pay a national 3 % sales tax for basic health care and you could get a private health care plan like MediCare B. No one would be fired for having cancer and then having to worry about where money for treatment would come from.

Any idea how much revenue a 3% sales tax would generate for the Federal government?

What would you do about Federal Income Tax? Would you adjust it down due to the federal theft...err...I mean sales tax?

(01-03-2019 12:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:31 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 01:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The real reason I posted it was I hope this goes viral and Sinclair is publicly shamed into getting this girl health insurance. You won’t get stories like this on Fox News.

A) I find this sort of thing despicable and hope that Sinclair is shamed into doing something.


B) Why would FoxNews report on something like this? It's not of national importance. Yes it sucks and is awful, but not of national importance and not worthy of national news coverage.

bit Pandas having sex....... is. Yes, they have done those. or the goto Teachers having sex with students. Plenty of things Fox News does to distract... I will find a funny youtube on it. My side has done some homework on Fox News and how they manipulate you guys.

"you guys?" OK. Thanks for that...but everybody loves panda porn...come on now.

My side, your side, you guys....the problem is that you can't realize that all of the newscorps do the same things.

(01-03-2019 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 10:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:46 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 12:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 12:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was because of Obamacare she could go on her parents policy!!!
King Cult is going to cult......

And because Obamacare is crap that she decided to go the COBRA route.

More BS from Owl#’s

Are you on an Obamacare policy?

she already had approvals, met deductibles, etc with her current insurance provider, so moving to a different insurer logically made no sense for a couple of hundred dollars per month. i fail to see how this is a problem with the ACA... it would be a similar problem if she had changed jobs and changed insurance providers.

Number one, how it is a problem with Obamacare is that it was sold as something that was going to fix this. But it didn't. What it did was to combine the worst element of our previous health insurance system (tying health insurance to employment) to the worst element of single-payer and single-provider health care systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship).

We need to divorce health care from employment. Get rid of another bad democrat legacy.

(01-03-2019 12:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  BTW.....
If Mach were King we all would pay a national 3 % sales tax for basic health care and you could get a private health care plan like MediCare B. No one would be fired for having cancer and then having to worry about where money for treatment would come from.

I'd do Bismarck health care (which is basically what you are suggesting), go higher with the consumption tax rate, and use the rest to balance the budget and broaden, flatten, and lower income tax rates to world class levels. At 15% we could virtually eliminate the individual income tax. I would also replace the current focused and means-tested welfare hodgepodge with a universal basic income (either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund) would cost about the same as our current mess, and let the states continue and fund any specific focused programs they want with the money they save when Medicaid becomes redundant.

(01-03-2019 12:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  BTW.....

If Mach were King we all would pay a national 3 % sales tax for basic health care and you could get a private health care plan like MediCare B. No one would be fired for having cancer and then having to worry about where money for treatment would come from.

Legally she wasn't fired for having cancer. She was fired because she couldn't work. She couldn't work due to illness.

So you are proposing that sick leave away from work be infinite. How would you monitor that so it wouldn't be abused and used as a way to avoid getting fired for being bad at your job

(01-03-2019 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 10:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:46 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 12:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And because Obamacare is crap that she decided to go the COBRA route.

More BS from Owl#’s

Are you on an Obamacare policy?

she already had approvals, met deductibles, etc with her current insurance provider, so moving to a different insurer logically made no sense for a couple of hundred dollars per month. i fail to see how this is a problem with the ACA... it would be a similar problem if she had changed jobs and changed insurance providers.

Number one, how it is a problem with Obamacare is that it was sold as something that was going to fix this. But it didn't. What it did was to combine the worst element of our previous health insurance system (tying health insurance to employment) to the worst element of single-payer and single-provider health care systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship).

We need to divorce health care from employment. Get rid of another bad democrat legacy.

no. it was sold as something that was going to provide coverage for those who cannot afford coverage or would otherwise be uninsured.

basically, obamacare is private insurance subsidized through tax credits... which, I thought, was beulahland for conservatives.

I do like your ideas on healthcare, but lets not pretend they would not get railroaded by the insurance lobby and the politicians funded by it.

(01-03-2019 01:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  no. it was sold as something that was going to provide coverage for those who cannot afford coverage or would otherwise be uninsured.

It was sold as universal health care. And it seems that her problem was affording coverage or otherwise being uninsured, so isn't she one of those that Obamacare was supposed to take care of--and didn't?

Quote:basically, obamacare is private insurance subsidized through tax credits... which, I thought, was beulahland for conservatives.

But unlike Bismarck, it's tax penalties, not credits, and the penalties are not sufficient to offset the cost of insurance. Give people a tax credit equivalent to the cost of a basic policy and GTFO of the way. That's Bismarck, and that was Heritage. And neither one includes the massive oversight bureaucracy seen in Obamacare, or for that matter in our health care system before Obamacare.

Quote:I do like your ideas on healthcare, but lets not pretend they would not get railroaded by the insurance lobby and the politicians funded by it.

Why would they get railroaded by insurance companies? Insurance companies generally do quite well in Bismarck countries.

As I have said numerous times. I like Owl #'s ideas on health care. I always have and I would fund the universal system through a national sales tax.

and JMU

I really am happy for your success. I love it when good things happen to good people and by my judgement on here you are what I would call "good people".

There has to be some line in the sand where we as a scoiety say that this is to far. Call it socialism if you must. I call it regulations and common sense.

(01-03-2019 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 01:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  no. it was sold as something that was going to provide coverage for those who cannot afford coverage or would otherwise be uninsured.

It was sold as universal health care. And it seems that her problem was affording coverage or otherwise being uninsured, so isn't she one of those that Obamacare was supposed to take care of--and didn't?

Quote:basically, obamacare is private insurance subsidized through tax credits... which, I thought, was beulahland for conservatives.

But unlike Bismarck, it's tax penalties, not credits, and the penalties are not sufficient to offset the cost of insurance. Give people a tax credit equivalent to the cost of a basic policy and GTFO of the way. That's Bismarck, and that was Heritage. And neither one includes the massive oversight bureaucracy seen in Obamacare, or for that matter in our health care system before Obamacare.

Quote:I do like your ideas on healthcare, but lets not pretend they would not get railroaded by the insurance lobby and the politicians funded by it.

Why would they get railroaded by insurance companies? Insurance companies generally do quite well in Bismarck countries.

I don't ever remember it being sold as universal healthcare. Quite the contrary, any idea of a single payer option within the exchange was quickly axed. As for her reasons for not moving to a private healthcare plan through the ACA exchanges, they sound exactly the same as the issues we have with our private plans through our employers. I do not know how you tell an insurance company what network of providers to run their preferred benefits through. It seems like that's the same heavy hand you consistently bemoan.

Tax credits are offered to help offset the premiums for private insurance purchased through the exchanges for families/individuals with incomes up to 351% of the poverty line.

Consumers need protections, assurances and oversight of insurance providers. Getting out of the way means consumers will get the shaft when they are most in need. Healthcare is not on par with buying a car or a dining room suite. There are a handful of providers and its in their best interest to deny claims.

They would get railroaded because any move to reduce dollars spent on healthcare will be met with resistance. We currently spend 18% of our GDP on healthcare... rough 33% more than our western peers.... and all parties are feeding at that trough do not want to see a reduction.

(01-03-2019 07:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  I don't ever remember it being sold as universal healthcare.

Oh really? Well what was Harry Reid talking about when he posted this on his website?

“The Affordable Care Act will ensure that all Nevadans and Americans have access to quality, affordable health coverage. This reform will not only lower costs, but improve choices, competition and offer more assistance to ensure that all Americans can afford health insurance.”

There are plenty of others, that one was just easy to google.

Quote:Consumers need protections, assurances and oversight of insurance providers. Getting out of the way means consumers will get the shaft when they are most in need. Healthcare is not on par with buying a car or a dining room suite. There are a handful of providers and its in their best interest to deny claims.

It is not in their best interests to deny claims that they have contracted to cover. It is in their best interest, and ours, to deny claims they have not contracted to cover. The best remedy is a fully competitive and transparent marketplace, which current government regulations--including regulations pursuant to Obamacare--work to prohibit.

Quote:They would get railroaded because any move to reduce dollars spent on healthcare will be met with resistance. We currently spend 18% of our GDP on healthcare... rough 33% more than our western peers.... and all parties are feeding at that trough do not want to see a reduction.

So we are just going to pay providers less, without cutting their costs. How do you suppose providers will react? I'm guessing fewer of them will choose to be providers. That's known as shortages and wait times, which result inevitably when governments force below-market prices onto providers. Disagree? Fine, provide examples where that has not happened.

You want to cut health care costs? Fine, cut costs to providers. I can think of two places. One, the cost of becoming a doc. Two, malpractice. There are ways to address both.

But if you are going to cut compensation without cutting costs, then the laws of supply and demand say you are going to get reductions in quality and availability. Please explain how you think we avoid that. By the way, CBO noted this in their famous letter to Harry Reid stating that Obamacare would "reduce the deficit."