Boehner Signs Up For Obamacare!!

[BLAZER PROPHET]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/po...bestoftv/2013/11/20/exp-cruz-cuomo-newday.cnn

Well good for him.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

he pays more for a plan with a higher deductible. :MARIS61:

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

he pays more for a plan with a higher deductible. :MARIS61:

The new reality.

 

[STOMP]

The new reality.

for a small minority of people (like Boehner who at 64 is a year from Social Security) this is true.

Your link didn't work... here's one that does

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...emiums-20131125,0,5241856.story#axzz2lz7DhjgW

The article quoted Boehner's spokesman, Brendan Buck, as lamenting: "The Boehners are fortunate enough to be able to afford higher costs. But many Americans seeing their costs go up are not. It’s because of them that this law needs to go."

Well, not really. Boehner's spiking premiums is one of those claims that may be true as far as it goes, but leaves out so much that it's at best a half-truth. And the contention that Boehner's experience is at all representative of what most Americans will experience under the Affordable Care Act jumps it up from half-truth to outright lie.

Having checked out my options, I'm going to signing up in the next month for coverage starting in the new year. Looks like I'm going to fall with the vast majority of Americans who qualify for the exchanges who will be paying less while receiving more. Premiums down, co-pays down, coverage up. Whats more, since I live in a state (Cal) without an asshat Republican Governor who refused the Federal funding, our website has been up and running fine and we're easily going to meet projections on enrollment. I went through the process with a friend who's an agent and it seemed like all win

the new reality

here's an even funnier link detailing Boehner's Heritage Foundationcare/Bob Dolecare/Romneycare/Obamacare charade

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-boehner-20131122,0,6719229.story#axzz2lgMQiJ00

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

http://medcitynews.com/2013/11/cali...change-obamacare-litmus-test-things-going-ok/

The day before Thanksgiving, the lead administrator of the Covered California health insurance exchange focused on a deadline that comes two days before Christmas.

To be covered on Jan. 1 through the new marketplace created by President Barack Obama's reform program, people must enroll by Dec. 23, Executive Director Peter Lee said during a presentation in Oxnard.

"We want to make sure all Californians know that now is the time to get coverage that begins Jan. 1," he said, noting the deadline has been pushed from an original date of Dec. 15.

About 385,000 people have completed insurance applications through Covered California since Oct. 1, Lee said. And about 140,000 of those people will receive government coverage on Jan. 1 through an expanded Medi-Cal program.

...

Last week, Covered California leaders rejected Obama's plan to extend policies for people who have received cancellation notices. The notices are aimed at policies that don't meet the new standards of federal reform.

Exchange members and observers said the decision was based on concern that the renewals would cause confusion, create logistical barriers, push more healthy people out of the exchange and bring large premium hikes in 2015.

"There are no good options," Lee said. "People are going to be losing policies that for some of them, a minimum, are pretty good policies and their rates are going up."

 

[Denny Crane]

So, about 1% of californians have completed applications.

Awesome.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I checked and under Obamacare my rates go up, I have a higher deductible and I pay more out of pocket. I am so very happy my company isn't throwing me to the wolves.

 

[barfo]

I checked and under Obamacare my rates go up, I have a higher deductible and I pay more out of pocket. I am so very happy my company isn't throwing me to the wolves.

This is pretty much a nonsensical statement.

Let's see, before Obamacare, what would have happened had your company 'thrown you to the wolves'?

Do you think you could have replicated the terms of your employer plan buying as an individual? Not bloody likely.

barfo

 

[STOMP]

This is pretty much a nonsensical statement.

Let's see, before Obamacare, what would have happened had your company 'thrown you to the wolves'?

Do you think you could have replicated the terms of your employer plan buying as an individual? Not bloody likely.

exactly. While it would be great for me if I was in a group plan via my company, fact is they don't offer it so it's been me vs the wolves for a while now. I'm paying significantly more now then I will starting January... and I'll be getting more comprehensive coverage.

STOMP

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This is pretty much a nonsensical statement.

Let's see, before Obamacare, what would have happened had your company 'thrown you to the wolves'?

Do you think you could have replicated the terms of your employer plan buying as an individual? Not bloody likely.

barfo

Easy, I would have bought my own policy for less money than Obamacare and with a reasonable deductible and copay. And since I'm somewhat in the business, I have helped a few people do just that.

 

[maxiep]

exactly. While it would be great for me if I was in a group plan via my company, fact is they don't offer it so it's been me vs the wolves for a while now. I'm paying significantly more now then I will starting January... and I'll be getting more comprehensive coverage.

STOMP

Is that with or without subsidies? If it is subsidized, understand that you're a freeloader.

 

[STOMP]

Is that with or without subsidies? If it is subsidized, understand that you're a freeloader.

I make way too much money, so sorry to disappoint but no subsidies. Of course for those whose income is such that they qualify for subsidies are less of a burden on society with health insurance then not as Emergency Room treatment is the most expensive way to go. This is a key concept of the rational behind this law that conservative groups/politicians initially came up with, advocated for & in one State installed, in the decades before the Democratic party got behind it and it became the worst thing ever

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

Easy, I would have bought my own policy for less money than Obamacare and with a reasonable deductible and copay. And since I'm somewhat in the business, I have helped a few people do just that.

spoke to my agent yesterday, he's dubious of your claim to say the least...maybe Oregon is different but it's well documented that rates are lower in California via the exchange then prior. I'll be signing up next week

STOMP

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

spoke to my agent yesterday, he's dubious of your claim to say the least...maybe Oregon is different but it's well documented that rates are lower in California via the exchange then prior. I'll be signing up next week

STOMP

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/wise-beyond-their-years_769104.html#

No charge.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/12/my-cancelled-policy-and-my-values.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey, the WWW site is working!

 

[Denny Crane]

spoke to my agent yesterday, he's dubious of your claim to say the least...maybe Oregon is different but it's well documented that rates are lower in California via the exchange then prior. I'll be signing up next week

STOMP

A couple of points. Not necessarily towards you, but you mention California.

First, California's exchange plans are really limited. In order to shave the price, they limit the number of doctors to a tiny number of all doctors. You won't be able to go to any of the elite medical facilities like UCLA. The doctors willing to take the price cut probably aren't the best of them. They're obviously not popular enough, at least, to make a go of it with the really good doctors.

You'll be able to keep your doctor. Period. My ass!

Second, Harry Reid signed up, and his rates went up by $4500. Serves him right.

 

[Denny Crane]

And for lack of wanting to start yet another ObamaCare sucks thread (because it really does!):

Read this:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=20232

Then this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esmail/canada-free-health-care_b_3733080.html

Many Canadians and commentators in other countries lauding Canada's government-dominated approach to health care refer to Canadian health care as "free." If health care actually were free, the relatively poor performance of the health care system might not seem all that bad. But the reality is that the Canadian health care system is not free -- in fact, Canadian families pay heavily for healthcare through the tax system. That high price paints the long wait times and lack of medical technologies in Canada in a very different light.

In 2013, a typical Canadian family of four can expect to pay $11,320 for public health care insurance. For the average family of two parents with one child that bill will be $10,989, and for the average family of two adults (without children) the bill comes to $11,381. As a result of lower average incomes and differences in taxation, the bills are smaller for the average unattached individual ($3,780), for the average one-parent-one-child family ($3,905), and the average one-parent two-child family ($3,387). But no matter the family type, the bill is not small, much less free.

And the bill is getting bigger over time. Before inflation, the cost of public health care insurance went up by 53.3 per cent over the last decade. That's more than 1.5 times faster than the cost of shelter (34.2 per cent) and clothing (32.4 per cent), and more than twice as fast as the cost of food (23.4 per cent). It's also nearly 1.5 times faster than the growth in average income over the decade (36.3 per cent).

 

[barfo]

And for lack of wanting to start yet another ObamaCare sucks thread (because it really does!):

Read this:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=20232

Then this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esmail/canada-free-health-care_b_3733080.html

Many Canadians and commentators in other countries lauding Canada's government-dominated approach to health care refer to Canadian health care as "free." If health care actually were free, the relatively poor performance of the health care system might not seem all that bad. But the reality is that the Canadian health care system is not free -- in fact, Canadian families pay heavily for healthcare through the tax system. That high price paints the long wait times and lack of medical technologies in Canada in a very different light.

In 2013, a typical Canadian family of four can expect to pay $11,320 for public health care insurance. For the average family of two parents with one child that bill will be $10,989, and for the average family of two adults (without children) the bill comes to $11,381. As a result of lower average incomes and differences in taxation, the bills are smaller for the average unattached individual ($3,780), for the average one-parent-one-child family ($3,905), and the average one-parent two-child family ($3,387). But no matter the family type, the bill is not small, much less free.

And the bill is getting bigger over time. Before inflation, the cost of public health care insurance went up by 53.3 per cent over the last decade. That's more than 1.5 times faster than the cost of shelter (34.2 per cent) and clothing (32.4 per cent), and more than twice as fast as the cost of food (23.4 per cent). It's also nearly 1.5 times faster than the growth in average income over the decade (36.3 per cent).

So, healthcare isn't free in Canada and the cost is going up? That's amazing news! I read in another thread the also amazing news that it's cold in the winter! What's next? Christmas being celebrated on December 25? Sex causing pregnancy?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The government kicks in another $1700 per person. No, it's not free, but it's not particularly cheaper than what it costs here, individually.

$1000/mo for family of 4. Plus what govt. Kicks in.

It's not really single payer, either, since everyone pays.

 

[dviss1]

Is that with or without subsidies? If it is subsidized, understand that you're a freeloader.

When people complain about actual PEOPLE getting subsidies and say NOTHING about the BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies GIVEN away to Oil Companies and companies like Monsanto, it makes me shake my head. Where were you when all this corporate welfare is being handed out? You are aware that we (you, I and everyone in this forum) gave Exxon/Mobil a 153 Million dollar check last year right?

 

[Denny Crane]

When people complain about actual PEOPLE getting subsidies and say NOTHING about the BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies GIVEN away to Oil Companies and companies like Monsanto, it makes me shake my head. Where were you when all this corporate welfare is being handed out? You are aware that we (you, I and everyone in this forum) gave Exxon/Mobil a 153 Million dollar check last year right?

$153M. Really?

 

[dviss1]

$153M. Really?

Edit: I was wrong. $156M.

BofA too... to the tune of 1.9 Billion.... Understand who is SCREWING us. It's not the working stiffs. it's these damn transnational corporations that are raping our coffers.

In the small amount of time it takes so simply complain about a guy using his food stamp card to buy a snickers BofA just stole 9K from us....

And the fucked up part is that the Republicans KNOW that Food Stamps are an economic STIMULATOR (same as Head Start).

[video=youtube;Sknt-UBRhxo]

 

[dviss1]

After all that shit man... I don't want to hear another MF talk about PEOPLE getting subsidies...

It says promote the general Welfare (welfare is capitalized) not turn a profit...

 

[Denny Crane]

$156M. Really? I don't remember signing a check that large.

I suppose that you can make up any number you want that's between what they made and what they paid.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/the-truth-about-all-those-subsidies-for-big-oil/#mbl

The government wrote checks for $500m to Solyndra. $0 to oil and gas companies.

 

[dviss1]

$156M. Really? I don't remember signing a check that large.

I suppose that you can make up any number you want that's between what they made and what they paid.

They paid no effective tax. The result was a refund. Almost all of the huge transnational corporations do this.

 

[dviss1]

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/the-truth-about-all-those-subsidies-for-big-oil/#mbl

The government wrote checks for $500m to Solyndra. $0 to oil and gas companies.

How the hell are you gonna bring up that when BofA got 1.9 Bil? Besides anyone who knows knows that Solyndra loans were started under Bush. I didn't see you complaining then.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/27/solyndra/?iid=EL

And what are you talking about? So are you saying the subsidies don't exist??

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...ohnson-says-subsidies-oil-companies-barack-o/

 

[dviss1]

So as Obama has called for an end to these unwarranted subsides (Corporate Welfare), are you against him on that one?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/u...subsidies-for-oil-and-gas-companies.html?_r=0

 

[dviss1]

The entire point I'm trying to make is people shouldn't complain about the money we spend helping our citizens when they say NOTHING about the free corporate welfare that these huge corporations are getting to the tune of Billions.