Posts by Mascara

. said:

Obamacare is all about gimmedats, the question is who gets to pay.

From a quoted site:

"The losers will be those few individuals who are in excellent health and non-poor, who might see their prices in the nongroup market go up"

There's your answer.

. said:

Don't believe the hype about Romneycare being good for Mass.

It has cost way more than estimated. Various classes have been eliminated and the cost for buying a plan is based on income to the point that it is cheaper to not claim the state tax exemption and pay the 50% over that than buy a plan.

I see the same thing with Obamacare. The poor, and unhealthy will sign on in droves. Access to care will take 20x longer than before the plan passed. The well-off will take the hit rather than buy a plan that costs 5x what it did before the law passed and there will be shortages in everything because all limits will be removed.

Bring it on, I say. This will add to the deficit faster than 60 Middle Eastern wars fought at once. Time to break the bitch.

Be prepared.

. said:

. said:

and there you have it.

Poor people won't pay for this. I suspect that large group plans won't (ie. megacorps). No way will government workers pay for it. Unions won't pay for it.

It'll get paid for in three ways.

. A little bit from the rich until they call their accountants and rearrange matters.
. Borrowing, to run up that sweet sweet federal debt.
. Individual plan holders will get the shaft.

That is EXACTLY the situation before Obamacare. Free riders drive up costs for everyone else, namely me. Obamacare at least makes the freeloaders pay something.

. said:

What's the link?

. said:

Jesus you dumbshit, would it help if I picked another town besides Boston?

Does more competitive mean that rates will go up in CA?

. said:

Mascara said:

1) Boston wages are generally higher than those in California. I earn about 40% more that I would out there.,

2) California's health insurance rates are generally less than here, so once this becomes implemented, rates will be more competitive.

Jesus you dumbshit, would it help if I picked another town besides Boston?

Does more competitive mean that rates will go up in CA?

. said:

Mascara said:

i.was.bee said:

I live in AZ and we are/were suing the govt over ObamaCare. My state has no interest in setting up exchanges, and even less interest in expanding MediCaid to cover more people. (We'd like to cover even less.) To balance our budgets, we've eliminated coverage for 200k people.

So you've got half the country overtly hostile towards implementing it. That hasn't changed with todays ruling. (And it's not constitutional UNDER the commerce clause.)

However, where do I buy this inexpensive coverage I'm supposed to get? (Mine keeps going up 10% a year) What if doctors won't take it and go cash only? (And they generally won't take MediCaid) I don't see how this works out, even though the ruling stands.

Insurance does not equal care.

Try reading up about it. Here's something I read which kind of fills in some gaps.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/29/10-obamacare-questions-answered-by-mit-economist-jonathan-gruber.html

Read some liberal rag propaganda to fill in the lies.

Please feel free to point out what specifically you believe to be a lie.

Use links too. It creates the illusion that you actually know what you are talking about.

Cue to...3...2...1...

MASCARA IS A FAT UGLY 90 YEAR OLD BURN VICTIM WHO HAS 550 CATS AND LIVES WITH HER GRAMMAW
\

. said:

I just checked on the Mass. web site for a 'silver' plan with a Boston zip.

The health insurance runs roughly 2x as much per month as the similar Anthem plan I buy in California.

sweet.

i.was.bee said:

Mascara said:

All I would add to this scenario is that perfectly healthy people sometimes get in skiing accidents, contract contagious diseases, and sometimes get catastrophic illnesses which ruin them financially.

All true. But shouldn't we let people take that risk? It is their life after all. Insurance is a good idea, but it costs too much, and AcA won't change that.

. said:

You're a fucking fool, Barry. If you're perfectly healthy AND you were forced to consider insurers as an individual (when the entire system runs on collective plans), then you should have NOT bought health insurance and just saved your money for doctor visits that you may have needed for things like rashes and pneumonia.

You get me on this, mister? Your complaints about the costs involved, fall on deaf ears. You had an obligation to yourself to avoid enabling your rapist. You chose to let your rapist stick his financial cock in you. You must like being raped, Barry.

i.was.bee said:

I am not offered it by my work. Insurance is state based and I do not live in the state my employer does business in. I am forced into the very limited individual market in AZ. Blue Cross has 90% of the market and has been increasing my prices about 10% a year.

I am "middle class" but I can't afford to take 10% annual increases ever year.

The ACA does not expand my options or cut my prices. I cannot buy insurance from NM and I will not be allowed to purchase insurance that might cover less. (mini Med plans) I don't see insurance exchanges being viable in my state without massive increases in costs. BCBS would necessarily need to raise rates to accommodate all the sick people they could no longer deny.

nonReggedMoniker said:

4. Can you explain what the government health plan will cost the individual if he/she makes $20K, 50K, 100K, 200K, or is a millionaire?
Roughly speaking, most folks wont be affected. The winners will be those who are low income or in poor health. The losers will be those few individuals who are in excellent health and non-poor, who might see their prices in the nongroup market go up; and the very wealthiest, who will pay a new Medicare tax. But, for most Americans, you wont really see a difference.

Apparently, I'm one of those sub-250k earners whose costs are going up. I'm in the non-group market, single, and "wealthy" by Obama standards. Seems sort of unfair.

The article doesn't indicate how those in non-complying states would be effected.

i.was.bee said:

I live in AZ and we are/were suing the govt over ObamaCare. My state has no interest in setting up exchanges, and even less interest in expanding MediCaid to cover more people. (We'd like to cover even less.) To balance our budgets, we've eliminated coverage for 200k people.

So you've got half the country overtly hostile towards implementing it. That hasn't changed with todays ruling. (And it's not constitutional UNDER the commerce clause.)

However, where do I buy this inexpensive coverage I'm supposed to get? (Mine keeps going up 10% a year) What if doctors won't take it and go cash only? (And they generally won't take MediCaid) I don't see how this works out, even though the ruling stands.

Insurance does not equal care.

. said:

Someone struck a nerve.

You're using Yari to absorb shrapnel and you know it.

. said:

Yari's always been a buttplug pawn. You did know?

. said:

I'll bid a fingertip of snot.

. said:

Mascara said:

. said:

Mascara said:

. said:

That ugly bitch would have to pay me a few million.

I'm sure you'd run off crying if she so much as smiled at you. They'd find you hiding in an underground sewer pipe, sobbing like a church on Monday.

She's 100x better looking and a better person than you are burn victim, cyclopes.

You just called her an ugly bitch, Skippy.

She is, which makes you a terribly ugly bitch and retard.

. said:

Mascara said:

. said:

That ugly bitch would have to pay me a few million.

I'm sure you'd run off crying if she so much as smiled at you. They'd find you hiding in an underground sewer pipe, sobbing like a church on Monday.

She's 100x better looking and a better person than you are burn victim, cyclopes.

. said:

Mascara said:

. said:

Nice Edit there. Why do you state obvious things over and over? Is it just to show us that how much you know?

It is clear I was talking about Douglas Ginsburg. The guy Kennedy replaced. Like I said.

I like to provide a certain diversionary idiocy, a bit of levity, so that the uptight jackasses on the board insult me, and don't go instead beat their cats, dogs, guinea pigs, or moms. God knows most of them don't have wives or gf's.

So you're trolling?

. said:

Sorry for the snark, Mascara. Just ignore this post. I'm drunk.

. said:

Nice Edit there. Why do you state obvious things over and over? Is it just to show us that how much you know?

It is clear I was talking about Douglas Ginsburg. The guy Kennedy replaced. Like I said.

. said:

That ugly bitch would have to pay me a few million.

. said:

Sigh.

Yes, that is why I said: (the first one that smoked weed with his students)

Does that ring a bell?

Barely. The 80's are kind of a blur for me.

. said:

Earl Warren was appointed because his Warren Commission buried the real facts behind the Kennedy Assassination.

The ultimate easy street job for life was his reward.

. said:

I think Kennedy replaced Ginsburg (the first one that smoked weed with his students).