86 thoughts on “ObamaCare’s Million-Dollar Question”

1. What healthy thirty year old would waste his or her money? Any healthy 30-year-old who realizes that they could be in a car accident tomorrow, or have a ruptured gall bladder, or appendicitis, or, really just any medical emergency.

   1. Did the chances of those things happening somehow magically increase with the passage of ObamaCare?

      1. No, they didn’t. But now our healthy under-30 person will actually get covered for those conditions as opposed to hope they don’t get walloped. Remember, you can’t just run out and get insurance any time you want. Under the exchanges, you have to enroll during open enrollment (October – December, extended for the first year to March) or when a “qualifying event” occurs.

         Getting hit by a bus is not a “qualifying event.”

         1. Getting hit by a bus (fortunately, a rare event) may not count as a qualifying event but if you apply for insurance, they can’t deny you having a pre-existing condition. The tax for not having health insurance is $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is greater. For most young people, that’s far less than the cost of the Obamacare premiums. When you add in the high deductables, it doesn’t make much sense for a young, healthy person to buy one of those policies. You’d be better off paying most medical expenses out of pocket.

         2. Actually you can go buy insurance whenever you want but you have to buy it by March to avoid paying 1% of your gross income in the Obamacare tax.

            And they could uave bought insurance under the old system too but now they don’t have the choice. Hmm teenage girls can choose to have an abortion but a 30 dude can’t choose not to have health insurance. Nice.

         3. But now our healthy under-30 person will actually get covered for those conditions as opposed to hope they don’t get walloped.

            That was the same choice they had before Obamacare. No point to your argument, Chris. So let’s ask this again. What changed that young people are going to buy health insurance when they didn’t before?

            All I can see is that they have this small fee that they have to pay each year until they decide to get insurance. That’s not much of an incentive especially since pre-existing conditions are no longer a big deal.

            1. What changed that young people are going to buy health insurance when they didn’t before?

               It’s a good question — on paper you wouldn’t think that the mandate penalty would provide enough incentive. But Massachusetts has an even weaker penalty, and they saw young people sign up in droves. In general people want to have health insurance, even healthy young people. The mandate reminds them that they are supposed to do this thing that they already want to do.

               It will be interesting to see what happens. I expect that enrollment will vary quite a bit from state to state, depending on the premiums, how well-run the exchanges are, and local norms.

            2. But Massachusetts has an even weaker penalty

               I went ahead and looked. A significant portion of young adults have to have health insurance in order to attend public universities in the state. So there is a considerable incentive to have health insurance. Second, insurers are allowed to offer cheaper, reduced benefit plans to young adults. I think that’s the killer deal for young adult participation and something missing by necessity from Obamacare.

            3. Most young people in MA don’t attend a public university there, and Obamacare has cheaper catastrophic plans for people under 30.

               It’s worth remembering that the architects of the MA exchange (e.g. Jonathan Gruber) were heavily involved in the design of the ACA.

         4. “But now our healthy under-30 person will actually get covered for those conditions as opposed to hope they don’t get walloped. ”

            You miss the obvious….most teens and 20-somethings don’t give 5 seconds thought to insurance of any kind. They never have.

            Insurance was always available to them.

      2. Rand, Chris is right on that one. I have been leary of being without health insurance, and that is why I am working for “The Man.”

         What we see happening and what is not unexpected is that a young person without pre-existing conditions is paying heftier premiums under the new law in many cases. Or being made eligible for Medicaid, a whole ‘nother story entirely in terms of being in a “medical system” where it is harder to get care.

         All of this is to a noble end of not bankrupting persons with certain preexisting conditions who cannot get health insurance as individuals at any price in many states and markets. But like many Socialist schemes, worthy ends paid with other person’s money require a supply of other persons to come up with the money. In this case, there are no visible taxes, but there is a defacto tax of high premiums on persons who are medically low-cost to make the transfer payment scheme work.

         I am not a Libertarian, and I could see a socialized scheme to keep from bankrupting people with pre-existing conditions, I could see this on the Conservative principles of an “orderly society” where a precondition for rule of law is not letting people fall through the cracks into abject poverty.

         But just because I am at least a “Lukewarmer” and think that CO2 emissions, if not an immediate problem could be a problem in the near future, this doesn’t mean that I believe in the Obama Administrations goof-ball energy policy. This Administration seems to talk a good game, although I am beginning to get tired of the talk-talk. They seem unable to administer anything, and the second one points that out you get, “Well Bush was worse!” Maybe he was, but he was held to account for his policy failures, whereas with the current government, it is blame, blame, whine, whine, excuse, excuse, the buck stops where, the buck stops where?

      3. But if you get hit by a bus it just becomes a pre-existing condition, and since they have to insure you with pre-existing conditions under Obamacare, why not just wait till you get hit before you bother signing up? After all, signing up for Obamacare only takes a few moments with their easy-to-use web interface.

         1. You might run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills between the time of the accident and the next insurance enrollment period.

            For example: you get hit by a bus in June, sign up for insurance in October, and coverage begins in January — but you’re on the hook for your medical bills from June through December.

            1. No. People can still buy insurance whenever they want. The enrollment period is to avoid paying 1% of your income in a tax.

            2. A twenty-five year old of 1985 thought the same way as a twenty-five year old does today. They think, “That will never happen to me.” That is what Rand was asking you.

         2. What’s this “insurance enrollment period” you speak of? You just log on to an Obamacare website and sign up. You could do it while you’re lying in the road waiting on the ambulance.

            1. The definition from the Healthcare.gov glossary:

               Open Enrollment Period

               The period of time during which individuals who are eligible to enroll in a Qualified Health Plan can enroll in a plan in the Marketplace. For 2014, the Open Enrollment Period is October 1, 2013–March 31, 2014. For 2015 and later years, the Open Enrollment Period is October 15 to December 7 of the previous year. Individuals may also qualify for Special Enrollment Periods outside of Open Enrollment if they experience certain events. (See Special Enrollment Period and Qualifying Life Event)

               You can submit an application for health coverage outside of the Marketplace, or apply for Medicaid or CHIP, at any time of the year.

               You can’t sign up whenever you want.

            2. Why would the online exchange be shutdown most of the year? People should be able to shop for the most affordable plan whether its june or december. These exchanges are turning out to be not what was promised.

            3. Why would the online exchange be shutdown most of the year?

               They aren’t shutdown entirely. If you have a Qualifying Life Event (e.g. you move to a new state, or marry, or have a baby) you are eligible to get new coverage on the exchange. But otherwise you have to think ahead, and buy insurance during the open enrollment period. That way you don’t have people gaming the system (e.g. George’s example of signing up only after being hit by a bus).

               This isn’t anything new. I administer my company’s group health insurance policy, and we have to enroll every November for the entire following year, and otherwise can only make coverage changes when there’s a “life event”.

            4. Jim said:

               You can’t sign up whenever you want.

               Well, that’s crap. What if I wish to change plans in June? Does that mean I can no longer change from one company to another in June? And yes, I know that ” ’cause I want to” is not a qualifying event, but it was a good enough reason pre-PPACA.

            5. Hal Duston:

               Every group policy I’ve ever heard of had limits on when you could get in and out of it. Come to think of it, most contracts of any nature, from leases to health club memberships, have limits on when you can cancel.

            6. Chris Gerrib said:

               Every group policy I’ve ever heard of had limits on when you could get in and out of it.

               I don’t have a group policy. I have an individual policy. I’m pretty sure I can cancel it and shop elsewhere at anytime. (Or I can until PPACA goes into effect).

               Come to think of it, most contracts of any nature, from leases to health club memberships, have limits on when you can cancel.

               How is that relevant? I avoid of these kinds of contracts, anyway. Everything is month-to-month.
               Most insurance policies (home/auto) do not pay for routine maintenance. My health insurance policy does. There are limits to drawing parallels.

            7. So if the open enrollment period is only from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014, what are they going to do when the website and databases aren’t halfway fixed until June?

            8. what are they going to do when the website and databases aren’t halfway fixed until June?

               Good question. I’m guessing that they won’t enforce the mandate until the site is working. The law includes a hardship exemption, and not being able to sign up for insurance because the website isn’t working would seem to qualify as a hardship (although technically you can also sign up by phone or mail).

            9. “Good question. I’m guessing that they won’t enforce the mandate until the site is working.”

               Lol and Democrats are calling Republicans Jihadis bent on destroying the country for suggesting a delay. Offer a helping hand to Obama and the Democrats say you want to kill women, children, and are part of the KKK. And you wonder why there is no bi-partisanship in congress.

         3. In fact, I think we should write an iPhone and Android ap where you put in all your critical information, and if you do get in an accident you or a friend just pull up the ap and hit the “enroll me now, I’m hurt!” button. Then the ap would link to an Obamacare website and sign you up while they’re wheeling your gurney into the ambulance. That way only the people who actually get hurt would need to carry any insurance, and wouldn’t need to carry it until they need it.

            1. There’s no app by design. Obamacare doesn’t want people to wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance. They want them to prepay, which is pretty much how insurance works.

            2. Obamacare doesn’t want people to wait until they are sick to sign up

               …and lefties want to deny reality. It’s called ‘adverse selection’ by the insurance industry Chris.

               How do you stop George from writing that app?

               Insurance started with covering shipping losses. ‘Preexistent conditions’ would be if you could sign up after the ship sank. This is a denial of reality and proof of mental illness.

            3. “There’s no app by design. ”

               Chris, he is saying an individual should make one of their own free will not have the government do it for him.

   2. And what would be the consequence if one of these under-30 people without medical insurance were to show up in an emergency room with a ruptured gall bladder or appendicitis? Would they be dumped on the hospital’s front lawn?

      1. The same thing would happen then as now – you would pay, in the form of higher charges for services.

         The whole point of this exercise is to get people to take personal responsibility so we’re not paying for freeloaders.

         1. So, you are telling us that Obamacare is to prevent freeloaders. How do you square that with all the subsidies? Chris: “We can’t be giving money to these people so we devised a plan to give money to these people.”

      2. About the same as would happen last year.
         They’d get treated, they’d get stuck for 50K in bills, the Hospital would get out of them as much as they can, and pass the rest on to the other customers and taxpayers.

         1. So it is a better deal to just pay the fine. And in the end nothing really changed.

            So, why did we upend the entire country in 2009 again?

            1. i suppose if you are some deadbeat, your outcome sounds like a great idea, but do you know what life is like with a 50K debt hanging on your neck like an albatross?

               Your credit score collapses, you can’t get a mortgage, bill collectors hound you.

               sure, if you are living in a little camper trailer out in the woods, without a phone,
               and working casual, that’s fine. It’s no fun if you are a real person.

               have you ever talked to someone who had a real medical bill?

            2. “They’d get treated, they’d get stuck for 50K in bills, the Hospital would get out of them as much as they can, and pass the rest on to the other customers and taxpayers.”

               Uh, so nothing has changed with Obamacare. This will still happen. Even with health insurance there will still be significant medical bills to be paid by the patient and the tax payers will still be paying for services to people who cant afford to pay their own way.

               A better solution would have been to attack the factors that cause the bill to be $50k in the first place.

2. Bias in media. The usual response is “cry me a river” and “I am playing a violin — this small.”

   Try

   “Hopefully that will be long enough for its software vendors to clean up the mess they’ve made.”

   from Consumer Reports.

   What they said is innocuous and innocent enough, right? Everyone agrees on the facts that Healthcare.gov is a mess? Or is Consumer Reports wrong?

   And it is up to the software vendors to “clean up the mess” “they’ve made.” Entirely factual. The coders wrote the code and the code doesn’t work and if the code is to get fixed, it is the coders working for the software vendors to do the fixing? And the mess is of their doing because they wrote it and it doesn’t work?

   As a matter of fact, IAASD (I am a software developer), and I am the proverbial “crabby bus driver” telling customers that they can’t have certain features (Hey kids, get your feet off the seats!). My software is a “shrink-wrap buy-it-off-the-shelf product”, customers can ask for features, they can go to the competition if it doesn’t have the features they want or need, but I am not under contract or employed by my customers, and I don’t hesitate saying no. Because controlling against “feature creep” is one way of maintaining quality in a software program — it doesn’t do badly the things it doesn’t do.

   So blaming the “software vendors” for the “mess they made” maybe doesn’t rise to the level of an outright lie, but we are being a little coy, now aren’t we here. These vendors aren’t Ford Motor supplying a Fusion automobile that Consumer Reports buys off a dealer’s lot like any other customer, and then Consumer Report finds fault that it isn’t put together very well.

   Healthcare.gov was subject to procurement rules that may have winnowed out software vendors who knew what they are doing but didn’t have experience writing competitive government procurement contract proposals? The selected vendors, in turn, were under contract, and they had to take whatever guff was dumped on them with respect to late issue of ‘business rules’, changed specifications, and hurry-up-and-wait deadlines? And maybe the scale and complication of what the government was asking of the vendors was unrealistic?

   But I guess Consumer Reports’ “business model” is that there are these poor, exploited consumers of everything from Ford automobiles to government-subsidized health-care plans, and everything that goes wrong is the fault of business people who aren’t doing their jobs right. No one else is to blame and there is no bias in media . . .

   1. The selected vendors, in turn, were under contract, and they had to take whatever guff was dumped on them with respect to late issue of ‘business rules’, changed specifications, and hurry-up-and-wait deadlines? And maybe the scale and complication of what the government was asking of the vendors was unrealistic?

      This is a crock, Paul. What your saying here certainly applies if the programmer is an employee or contractor. But it’s entirely different for a vendor being paid millions of dollars. Yes, the customer, in this case the government will attempt the same crap, but they do not have the kind of leverage that a poor employee is under making it much easier to deal with. Any vendor capable of winning such a contract would not last long in business if they couldn’t deal with it.

   2. Don’t forget that Consumer Reports backed this turdburger. Sold the devil out of it to seniors. So did AARP.

      1. AARP makes a lot of money selling supplemental insurance.

3. Since the ACA allows young people to stay on their parents’ health plans until they turn 26, the law dramatically shrinks the pool of healthy young customers whose overpayments on insurance are supposed to subsidize the middle aged beneficiaries of the law. Wrong.

   Those under 26 on their parents’ plans are still paying into the insurance pool – their parents are paying more money than they would if they were not covering dependents.

   1. Yes, but . . .

      Apparently, the critical last-piece-of-the-puzzle of the PPACA is getting young healthy persons without pre-existing conditions and without an employer health plan to voluntarily pay for an expensive individual health plan. Those under age 26 on the parent’s plan haven’t been faced with the need to “make a good life decision” on this question. The whol PPACA, apparently, hinges on younger persons “taking the long view”, not engaging in risk but doing the safe thing, and voluntarily paying out a considerable amount of coin for something without an immediate personal benefit. As they say, good luck with that!

      1. wodun: There’s certainly nothing preventing the parents from asking their offspring to pay for the coverage. Nor is there any requirement for the child to stay on the parents’ plan. It is merely an option.

      2. Jim

         which is why the Tax incentive, if you have to buy a plan that’s 2% of your gross income,
         you may view a 1% penalty a lot differently from no penalty at all.

         1. If you’re paying only 2% of gross income (unless you happen to have an extremely high income) then you’re not funding Obamacare.

            1. young people under 26, statistically aren’t too expensive to insure.

            2. It’s not the matter of covering young people’s health insurance. It’s the matter of covering everyone else’s health insurance. Those other people especially the ones with “pre-existing conditions” are very expensive to cover. As has been noted before, Obamacare counts on young people to buy insurance and pay for everyone else who is consuming more health resources than their insurance payments cover.

   2. Their parents are paying in but they are not. That is a significant distinction. Also, if they are on their parents plan they may not get the best insurance because while they may qualify for a subsidy, their parents are using them as a tax writeoff so they can’t claim the subsidy.

      1. wodun: There’s certainly nothing preventing the parents from asking their offspring to pay for the coverage. Nor is there any requirement for the child to stay on the parents’ plan. It is merely an option.

         (Sorry for double-post)

         1. “It is merely an option.”

            Correct and we are talking about the effects of those options.

4. “Since the ACA allows young people to stay on their parents’ health plans until they turn 26, the law dramatically shrinks the pool of healthy young customers”

   Rand makes 2 fundamental assumptions in his attack here. 1) that a 25 year old has parents, 2) that
   a 25 year old has parents with good insurance.

   We will address item 1) Not every 25 year old has parents, lots of people are orphans, foster kids, are emancipated minors, or have dysfunctional parents. Lots of parents tell kids, you are 18, hit the bricks.

   Then item 2). Not every 25 year old has parents with good health insurance. Lots of people in their 40’s and 50’s are self employed, working at small businesses, lost their jobs,,,,

   I can rattle off a dozen acquaintances of mine who since 2008 have been bouncing from crappy 3 month assignments for 5 years. Many of these are family people. When the choice comes between insurance and mortgage, mortgage wins.

   1. The problem is that the answer from the left is to go after the money of the rest of the middle class that is already good to go in their lives.

      You are making a middle class family that was getting along just fine last year give up opportunities for their children that they otherwise would have, because now that finding must be dedicated to higher premiums to pay for the groups of people you are talking about.

      To “help” one group you hurt another group.

      This is what is being talked about by the right. The right is not willing to inflict pain on middle class people who already have insurance they can afford and cause them lost opportunities for some other group. The right believes it is not the governments right to hurt some to”help” others. That is the mindset of the common thief.

      1. “finding” should be “funding”

   2. If a parent has insurance, the law states their kids up to age 26 are covered on their policy. It doesn’t matter if the parents are poor or their type of employment their kids get coverage. It would be interesting to look at the legal situation around a 25 year who was estranged from their parents but puts in a claim they are required to pay for their insurance as the law requires.

      1. No, the law says the parents “may” carry their kids on their coverage. All that changed was that insurance companies could force people off of their parent’s policies at age 21.

         The parent can still not pay for the optional coverage at any age.

         1. That’s correct. I have adult sons who are under 26 but they aren’t on my policy because they have their own coverage. When I did have them on my policy it was an additional $700/mo (the difference between the employee + spouse premium and the employee + spouse + children premium).

            1. Like most liberal statist thugs you look only at your fine circumstance and think everyone is in the same circumstance. They are not.

               Kids are willful and do what they want. If an 18-26 year old chooses to not get health insurance then the parent is faced with a choice. The parent KNOWS that if the kid gets hurt or sick they, the parents, will pay out of their own pockets so to protect themselves, they put the kid on their policy.

               The kid doesn’t sign up.

               Obamacare goes without that income.

               Klasssik example of Socialist Screwed Up Thinking.

               Oh and please don’t compare the Massachusetts plan/results with National. Inthe first place the Mass plan was put in place to solve a tiny problem. This is a high tech state and most people have health insurance fromtheir companies. Secondly healthcare costs in Ma are still skyrocketing and thirdly the Mass welfare plan in general is drawing indigents from everywhere because its so cushy and fourthly Mass. taxes are going up….up…up….

               Why don’t you also tell everyone, in the same breath, how a statewide refernedum to cut property taxes was voted in by the people and totally ignored by the politicians? That has a bearing on how “wildly successful” the Mass plan is….it’s driving taxes up

               Why don’t you tell everyone about how the Mass government wants casinos – and the crime and blight that go with them – to raise more and more money to pay for the health plan among other things?

               Why don’t you stop lying by commission and omission?

            2. they put the kid on their policy. The kid doesn’t sign up. Obamacare goes without that income.

               The parents have to pay more for a policy that covers their children, so the insurance company gets money either way.

         2. That may be but it is a contradiction of the rhetoric coming from Obama and the Democrats. There is so much lies and hype from the Democrats on this.

5. Maybe slightly off topic, but at the time, I thought Ted Cruz and the TEA Party-wing Republicans were totally stoopid on the Government Shutdown because we all knows how that ends and it ended that way.

   If people look for my comments, I stand by that I said as much at the time.

   But in retrospect, maybe the TEA Party people aren’t stoopid. They “layed down a marker” that the PPACA has to be at least viewed with skepticism, that if not repealed outright, maybe it needs to be delayed, and the President would have none of that.

   Now, the President has made his bed and has to sleep in it. The Republicans are in a strong I-told-you-so position . . . and . . . the Republicans have not compromised and become Mr. Obama’s partners-in-crime by “fixing the Act.”

   So maybe the Shutdown drama, in the long view, was good for Republicans, good for the Country.

   1. Oh, like nobody heard about the 47 votes the House took to repeal Obamacare?

      1. Pretty sure that number is made up with some heavy partisan math. Meaning great liberty was taken in determining what conatituded a vote to repeal Obamacare. Like voting to get rid of the medical device tax is probably considered a repeal attempt. Or in other words, Democrats view Republican efforts to fix the bill as a repeal attempt. So partisan math.

         1. Wouldn’t you agree that most people who pay any attention to politics know that Republicans are opposed to Obamacare? I don’t think it took a shutdown to get that message out.

            1. Yes, and to build on an analogy developed over at American Spectator (yes, echo chamber, yes, I know), young people in the 60’s weren’t thrilled with the prospect of going to die in a jungle halfway around the world, and they didn’t have to burn draft cards and stage protests to get their point across?

            2. An interesting analogy — the House of Representatives as a bunch of draft card-burning protesters. As Jon Chait writes, “It is certainly unusual to see a major political party engaging in the politics of demonstration as though it were a marginal bloc of social activists”.

            3. “I don’t think it took a shutdown to get that message out.”

               Me either. I think the shutdown was a misstep.

               There are not the votes in the Senate to repeal or overcome a veto. However, Republicans offered several options. One of which was getting rid of the medical device tax and the other was a one year delay in enforcing the individual mandate. Both of those would have been good for the Democrats and showed a spirit of bipartisanship but Democrats opted not to go that route which was as big of a mistake as the Republicans forcing the issue.

   2. ” I thought Ted Cruz and the TEA Party-wing Republicans were totally stoopid on the Government Shutdown because we all knows how that ends and it ended that way.”

      Rand was all in favor of shutdown.

      1. “Rand was all in favor of shutdown.”

         So was I. Too bad they caved so soon.

         1. And caving later would have been better for them? The first rule of holes: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

         2. Rand just threw you under the bus, Gregg.

            1. I didn’t “throw” anyone “under the bus,” you moron.

      2. If you’re referring to me, I was not. I was in favor of defunding ObamaCare. While I’m not a Republican, I’m not aware of any who were in favor of shutdown. The Democrats wanted the shutdown, not the Republicans, because the Democrats knew the Republicans would be blamed for it, even though it was the Dems shutting down the government in preference to losing, or even delaying, ObamaCare. The electorate will be reminded of that a year from now, after millions have lost their insurance or seen their rates skyrocket, or been laid off as a result of that atrocious law.

         1. I was in favor of defunding ObamaCare.

            How, when doing so requires the assent of the Senate and President?

            I’m not a Republican, I’m not aware of any who were in favor of shutdown

            The House GOP had two choices:

            1) Sign a clean CR
            2) Have a shutdown, and then sign a clean CR

            They went with option 2. Doesn’t that mean they were in favor of a shutdown?

            1. Harry Reid and Barack Obama had two choices:

               1) Pass and sign the CR from the House without ObamaCare
               2) Refuse to do so and shut down the government.

               They chose to do the latter.

               Isn’t this fun?

            2. Yes, the Dems preferred a shutdown to giving up their top domestic policy priority. The Republicans preferred a shutdown to giving up … what?

               The Republicans could have signed the same deal a month earlier, but instead Boehner allowed a shutdown. He needed the shutdown to convince the defund-Obamacare caucus that their hopes were a fantasy; if he’d offered a clean CR before the shutdown they would have revolted, and Boehner would have lost his gavel.

            3. Contrary to media (and your) lies, the Republicans didn’t prefer a shut down at all.

            4. Then why didn’t they vote on a clean CR in September? They were willing to in October. The record is clear: they preferred shutdown + clean CR to clean CR alone.

            5. Because they didn’t realize how much the Democrats looked forward to a shut down.

            6. Because they didn’t realize how much the Democrats looked forward to a shut down.

               So they didn’t want a shutdown, but allowed one because they didn’t realize that the Democrats wanted one? That makes absolutely no sense.

6. Richard Fernandez asks, “Can it be implemented?”

7. The real problems with Obamacare haven’t even begun to surface. what you are seeing is just the tiniest beginning.

   Just wait until you file a claim and see how the bureaucracy *doesn’t* run. How some government goon bureaucrat denies your claim to save costs and as its the government you can’t do a thing about it.

   Just wait until the mount of graft, extortion, and crony-ism grows and grows as special people get special deals and the hoi polloi get squat. Just like any other Socialist plan…the elites do fine and the proles live in a dingy grey decrepit world.

   Just wait until the costs REALLY skyrocket…we’ve seen only just the merest beginning of that.

   Just wait until your taxes skyrocket to dump more and more money into a failed system.

   Just wait until you have to wait for any kind of serious care…as we see in Canada.

   Lastly but certainly not least, just wait until people are left to rot, starve, suffer and die in hospital wards and at home. As we already see in the UK NHS system.

   Just wait – you ain’t seen nothing yet.

   1. How some government goon bureaucrat denies your claim to save costs and as its the government you can’t do a thing about it.

      When you buy a policy at Healthcare.gov you’re buying it from a private insurance company. Your claims will go to the insurance company, same as always. [Back in 2009 the House health reform bill included a public option — a government-run insurance provider that consumers could choose if they wanted to — but that isn’t in the bill that became law.]

      It’s striking how these fundamental misperceptions of the law persist.

      1. When you are a Medicaid receipient, your health care is administered through a private insurance company.

         It is not like the old days of the Springfield Arsenal — government programs are contracted out and the rifles are purchased from Armalite or Colt or somebody.

         Were we to have Single Payer, there will be a role for insurance companies in its administrations.

         It is striking how misperceptions regarding how government provides services persist.

      2. You might want to read up on Medicare reimbursements. We are not just talking about insurance companies any more but impacts of the government’s role in providing health insurance.

8. The real story behind the Obamacare Rollout Disaster is that on the night of September 30, CMS had a drone aircraft orbiting the server farm with a live video feed to the situation room in the White House, two C-141 planes with engines turning carrying Special Sys-admins were just waiting on the runway out at Andrews AFB, and someone, someone gave the order to “stand down.”

9. Admiral Gerrib at the helm of the good ship (actually bad ship) Argumentum ad Misericordia* again.

   *http://voices.yahoo.com/logical-fallacies-politics-appeal-pity-679009.html

Comments are closed.