And moreluck unsuccessfully takes a swing at a strawman.
Nice try, bless your heart.
Nice try, bless your heart.
President Obama!
- Thread starter passerby
- Start date
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
You can't cure naiveness either. Next........
Because the insurance they had was so crappy it is no longer legal, meaning they aren't paying the insurance company for insurance that is pretty much useless. If their income is within 400% of the poverty level, they will receive a subsidy for most of the premium, and have better insurance for less money. The penalty in 2014 for not complying with the ACA is 1% of your taxable income or $95 per adult. There is a financial hardship waver, and a religious waver, among others.
Propaganda is all you are spewing.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Propaganda is all they have and exactly why they lost the presidential election.
moreluck
golden ticket member
All surfers on the site (ACA) since it was broken in parts were quoted the rates of a 27 yr. old or younger. They will be in for a surprise when all is fixed and the rate they were quoted as a 45 yr. old with 2 kids is much higher than they originally thought it would be.
oldngray
nowhere special
the rates were just in 2 categories, over and under 50. The people in 40's were quoted for 27 so the quote was far lower than reality.
Nimnim
The Nim
Who says a person in their early or even mid to late 20s with just "catastrophic" insurance, they broke a bone or were diagnosed with cancer and the insurance plan will cover it, but it doesn't cover that they got sick with the flu or sprained their ankle has crappy insurance? I wouldn't call it crappy if an expected to be healthy person chose to get insurance for something they wouldn't normally be able to afford. We were all like this when we were younger, we felt like we were invincible. 10 years ago I wouldn't care if I had insurance to cover me when I woke up feeling like death warmed over. I'd just call into work say I was sick and sleep for a couple days. Now that I'm older, I'm still likely to sleep a couple days, but knowing I have the insurance and that I'm not the young and invincible I once was I'm more likely to visit a clinic or doctor over it.
I've tried to get through to the Obamacare website to see what a plan would cost me, using the guidelines I have and the amount of the w-2 I have to see if I can get anything equivalent for near the same, but I can't get through the site. I keep getting errors, and that's not what I should be getting given the 4+ years to develop the website. Sure the details might have needed changing and adjustment, but I can't think of a single institution with 4+ years of planning that would fail this badly on release of the website.
oldngray
nowhere special
The company that designed the site has a bad history of buggy software. They blame HHS and Sebelius claimed everything is still OK (and she even has time to go on Comedy Central but not appear before Congress to answer questions). They also blamed a last minute change to force people to register before they could browse the plan costs (to hide the real costs to casual observers?).
Nimnim
The Nim
You know, just thinking about the absurdity of the mandates, I know a few people who have been diagnosed as sterile. Both male and female, but under the ACA they're required to purchase insurance that also covers pregnancy/maternity. Insurance is all about spreading the cost over risk tables, but these physically can't actually end up in these situations that the insurance covers and as such are being further penalized for an unfortunate circumstance they endure.
How could any compassionate person pour salt in the wound of these poor individuals who are unable to foster children biologically by making them pay for the treatment of others who can?
Oh hey, why not. Why would any same sex couple be required to purchase insurance that covered pregnancy when their coupling has no ability to do so, without an outside agreement either through sexual contact with the opposite sex or through a medical facility to preform insemination. Should insurance also cover optional fertility treatments?
How could any compassionate person pour salt in the wound of these poor individuals who are unable to foster children biologically by making them pay for the treatment of others who can?
Oh hey, why not. Why would any same sex couple be required to purchase insurance that covered pregnancy when their coupling has no ability to do so, without an outside agreement either through sexual contact with the opposite sex or through a medical facility to preform insemination. Should insurance also cover optional fertility treatments?
Last edited:
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
This whole deal was primarily crafted by people that are out of touch with the average working American and have no idea what its like in the real world outside of the chambers of the House and Senate. You know.... the ones that are exempt from it.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
This post is just wrong in so many ways.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Most everything is fixable, but at what price ??
But it probably won’t.
But it probably won’t.
(CNN) - The federal healthcare site is expected to be almost fully functioning by the end of November, predicted Jeffrey Zients, who has been appointed by President Barack Obama to help lead the fixes of healthcare.gov.
Zients spoke to reporters Friday for the first time since being brought on board and said the “vast majority” should be able to use all elements of the site by that point.
Zients said they are appointing contractor QSSI to lead the effort to resolve the technical problems.
“Healthcare.gov is fixable,” Zients said on the conference call.
Zients spoke to reporters Friday for the first time since being brought on board and said the “vast majority” should be able to use all elements of the site by that point.
Zients said they are appointing contractor QSSI to lead the effort to resolve the technical problems.
“Healthcare.gov is fixable,” Zients said on the conference call.
Nimnim
The Nim
Yeah, I say that to myself a lot when reading some of the posts here so I thought I'd spread it around some and try myself.
You would think they would learn from Social security and Medicare. Do we really need another unsustainable plan?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Social Security and Medicare would both have surpluses if Congress had not "borrowed" from them.
Similar threads
