Wednesday, December 12, 2018 • Morning Edition • "Newsarama 2: Outhouse Boogaloo."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

So who's getting Obamacare?

What will you be doing once Obamacare takes effect?

I will be keeping my current plan.
26
67%
I will be signing up for a new plan under Obamacare.
6
15%
I will be losing my insurance.
1
3%
I don't have insurance now and will continue to not have it.
3
8%
I am a US Senator or major corporation so I am exempt.
3
8%
  Total votes : 39

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:29 am

:lol:
User avatar

Zero

Zombie Guard

Postby Zero » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:48 am

Lord Ice wrote:After the last few years I've had, my insurance has really been nice to have. Course even with it, an ambulance ride still cost me $900.


What the mothering fuck?!
User avatar

TheLurker

rubber spoon

Postby TheLurker » Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:25 am

The first things you should consider are your monthly premium amount, deductible and out of pocket expenses (the amount you pay after the insurance makes their payment). If you have a choice, you should choose a higher deductible rather than a higher monthly premium.
User avatar

Regulator

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Regulator » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:47 am

Spektre wrote:
Hmm, do you happen to be one of those who "hope" for the zombie apocalypse?


With the brainlessness of the current crop of Republicans and the mindless drones they've converted by seeming magic like yourself, it feels like we're already there.
User avatar

David Bird

rubber spoon

Postby David Bird » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:03 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
I have a decent plan through work, but there is only an employer contribution for me. For my wife and kids, they have to pay the full price. So to insure the whole family through my work insurance is $1300 with no tax credit. Through Obamacare is $1300 with $600 tax credit. But the plan might not be as good for me, and I'm not sure if you can mix and match. BTW, we don't have $1300 each month so the wife and kids are uninsured right now.


I pay just under $1600 for the family for the year ($133/month).
User avatar

Rockman

Rain Partier

Postby Rockman » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:13 am

Seeing as how I'll receive a punitive tax if I don't get some kind of insurance plan by March I might.
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:22 am

I'd like to, but the plan I need is over $500 a month, which, with my other expenses, I can't afford. And I can't get a straight answer from anyone who really is supposed to know as to how the premium assistance works. Tax credit? Not a tax credit? Only paid when you file? How about if you don't owe taxes?

Honestly, the bill itself is over 2000 pages long, and there's about 20,000 more pages of regulations attached to it. Also, I'm not sure if it will kick in on January 1. Obama himself has already unilaterally and illegally, (he doesn't have that power according to most legal sources), delayed selected portions of it. Who knows how the current battle will play out? Will the Republicans get their demand to delay the individual roll out just like Obama delayed the roll out for his buddies?

All this leaves me hanging when I desperately need the coverage. I don't understand the stuff above, and the jackass Republicans are screwing around with people's lives, while offering no more than a "Die, middle class and poor scum" approach as their "health plan".

Not that the poor fair much better under O-Care, which consigns them to Medicaid. Which if you have----good luck finding a doctor who'll take you.

Basically, this is a poor law, poorly constructed by one party only, ignoring the sensible suggestions the Republicans made at the time, and including all sorts of completely unrelated stuff. It should have been simply, including only the basics that we lacked before.

But the Republicans don't get that a poor law is better than no law in this case. Why should they, they aren't going to suffer under it in any case. Evidently the wonderful Obamacare isn't so wonderful that rich Congressmen and their staff, or the Federal judiciary, or Obama himself and his staff, want any part of it without the government giving them large subsidies that were supposed to be reserved for those who actually need it.

But regardless, I'm left in a bind. What to do? I can't swing the monthly expense without the premium assistance, but I need the coverage. It'll be at least a two hundred dollar increase over my last insurance, which is now gone. And man, Covered California's site is so unclear on exactly how that assistance works. Nor do the "counsellors" I've talked to seem to understand.

Nobama

Postby Nobama » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:28 am

pastajoe wrote:The program is mainly for people who previously weren't offered and/or couldn't afford insurance.

Correction, for all of you who don't really understand what Obamacare is for, how it's really going to work and what it's going to do to this country.

Its for those people who dont have insurance because they never wanted to pay for it in the first place, who still intend to not purchase it for themselves moving forward and who are going to manipulate the "fine" for not purchasing healthcare in their favor just as Obama intends it to be manipulated.

Obamacare has been created as a way to make people who contribute to society even more financially responsible for those who refuse to carry their own weight....a mass of people that is only going to continue to bloat so long as they keep thinking the government is going to take care of them (just as they think currently).

Ask yourself how the cost is going to be paid for when all those people, who still don't buy healthinsurance and simply plan to incur the "penalty", go in for service? The cost is simply going to be passed on to decent hard working people in the form of higher premiums and income taxes.

It was created only to make the current work force pay even more than they already do for the leeches. Oh yeah, and to assure that those leeches keep voting the way they already do because they are being "taken care of".

Thanks libs! Thanks for causing the beginning of the collapse of western society.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:03 am

I have to agree with Achilles that it's rather confusing. I'm going to have to find some time to really sit down and go through all the data on that website, which is not very clear.

Lionel, it's a great myth that the government wants to redistribute wealth to poor people. What it really wants to do is extract wealth from the poor and the middle class and give it to the super rich. This is done through shitloads of debt, which dwarfs any amount redistributed through health care costs.
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:05 am

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that it mandates coverage for different classes of people who simply could NOT get insurance, even if they wanted it.

Which is to say people with pre-existing conditions. It also eliminates lifetime and annual caps on using your insurance. Which helps if you're in a catastrophic accident and need long-term care, or have some chronic condition that requires continual care.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people like that, mostly through no fault of their own. Before, they were screwed. Obamacare, no matter how flawed, (and yes, the name Afforable Care Act is funny since it will eventually bankrupt the country, even according to the CBO, which forecasts over $12 trillion in new debt caused by the act, and average premiums for men in some states will triple, while women's will double), fills a need for a great many citizens.

It is also true that during the making of Obamacare, Obama and the Democrats ignored the Republican's suggestions that would have driven premiums down and lowered overall medical care costs, such as the ability to buy insurance from out of state, and malpractice reform. They did this because they don't want to negotiate with the Republicans, and they were beholden to special interests, such as the trial lawyers, who lobbied heavily against malpractice reform.

But it is equally true that the Republicans offer nothing at all to the category of people I mention above who simply can't get insurance. Or who find their insurance limited out by surpassing their lifetime or annual caps. They basically tell these people to shut up and die, preferably in agony.

Sure, if Obama had worked with the Republicans when they made the law, and taken up their suggestions, the law would have been better, and perhaps the Republicans wouldn't be opposing it like they are now. But it's there, and for a lot of people, it's better than dying.

What the Republicans should be pushing for is not repeal, but for Obama to allow in those things they wanted in the law in the first place.
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:07 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I have to agree with Achilles that it's rather confusing. I'm going to have to find some time to really sit down and go through all the data on that website, which is not very clear.

Lionel, it's a great myth that the government wants to redistribute wealth to poor people. What it really wants to do is extract wealth from the poor and the middle class and give it to the super rich. This is done through shitloads of debt, which dwarfs any amount redistributed through health care costs.


True enough. If you look at the actual differences in wealth levels in the Obama years, the wealthy have gotten wealthier while the poor and especially the middle class have gotten poorer, at historic rates.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:11 am

achilles wrote:
True enough. If you look at the actual differences in wealth levels in the Obama years, the wealthy have gotten wealthier while the poor and especially the middle class have gotten poorer, at historic rates.


Yeah. I agree the liberals (and Republicans) love to play class warfare with the poor and the middle class, it's always the disgustingly rich (not talking $200,000 a year people here, but CEOs and banks and whatnot) who really win no matter who is in charge.
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:23 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
Yeah. I agree the liberals (and Republicans) love to play class warfare with the poor and the middle class, it's always the disgustingly rich (not talking $200,000 a year people here, but CEOs and banks and whatnot) who really win no matter who is in charge.


I might add that the rich always get richer, no matter who's in power. Just to clarify my earlier post.

What really frosts me about O-Care here is that IMO everyone involved, all of Congress, the President and his staff, and the Federal judiciary should all be required to go on the exchanges without any subsidies unless they meet the income requirements the rest of us have to.

And please let me find someone to explain if I can get those subsidies and how they work! :-(

BTW, another feature I like is the limit on out of pocket expenses per year. One I don't like is the lack of long-term care. A big deal for those of us with older parents or relatives who are in a bad way and not likely to get better. That was eliminated early on in the formation of O-Care, I don't recall by who or why.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:27 am

achilles wrote:
I might add that the rich always get richer, no matter who's in power. Just to clarify my earlier post.

What really frosts me about O-Care here is that IMO everyone involved, all of Congress, the President and his staff, and the Federal judiciary should all be required to go on the exchanges without any subsidies unless they meet the income requirements the rest of us have to.

And please let me find someone to explain if I can get those subsidies and how they work! :-(

BTW, another feature I like is the limit on out of pocket expenses per year. One I don't like is the lack of long-term care. A big deal for those of us with older parents or relatives who are in a bad way and not likely to get better. That was eliminated early on in the formation of O-Care, I don't recall by who or why.


Agreed on all those points. And honestly, while I understand it really pisses off people who get sweet plans from their employers (and the number of people who do have been dwindling for years, by the way, before Obamacare was conceived), I would be happy with a single payer option that just ensured everyone, even if it was a downgrade for some, and the option to pay out the ass for private insurance if you're a millionaire, or maybe take a voucher from the government and go private if you want, because I know from experience that it really sucks to live without insurance and not be able to afford it, and I actually make a decent salary, comparatively.
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:35 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
Agreed on all those points. And honestly, while I understand it really pisses off people who get sweet plans from their employers (and the number of people who do have been dwindling for years, by the way, before Obamacare was conceived), I would be happy with a single payer option that just ensured everyone, even if it was a downgrade for some, and the option to pay out the ass for private insurance if you're a millionaire, or maybe take a voucher from the government and go private if you want, because I know from experience that it really sucks to live without insurance and not be able to afford it, and I actually make a decent salary, comparatively.


Actually, at this point, I completely agree. If it's done right so the system doesn't go bankrupt, and so waiting times aren't too bad. New Zealand has a dual system like that, and by all accounts they're pretty happy with it.

I've heard a few horror stories about both the British NHS and Canada's system, while I think the French are generally satisfied with their system, save that it's going bankrupt and hospitals are being closed. I'd be interested to hear about other country's systems and how good they are from any of the Outhousers who live there.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests