Oby!!!! Take down this health care site!!!

Simply put , I don't need the help. Like most , I'm scaling down. I fyou find a better price for insurance ;go for it. How does obyscare lower a private insurance carrier's rates ? Mine will go from $ 209/mo to nearly $ 500. This holds true for most folks in my position. Maryland boasts about 300 enrollees. None in Oregon. Much is same across the US. The system was down for a while. Could not compute the correct subsidy. Means testing gone astray. LOL. The canadian software vendor had to be chased down. So much for obyscare creating American jobs. Hmmmmm , not trolling just observing. Just sayin.

 

Increased competition, more customers in some demographic groups, lower average customer age.

Next year will be better, as insurance companies replace cost projections with actual data. Competiton will keep the pressure on them.

All new web sites have their problems. Reliability will improve, and traffic levels will go down. They will never again have as many site visitors as they had the first few days.

So far, this afternoon, that is true. You see? It really is possible to make a point and disagree with somebody without talking about "drinking Obama's bathwater" or any other such disgusting bullshit. :cheers2: Can you keep it up for a whole day?

 

And (of course this is just pure speculation), but I can almost guarantee I can tell you why that is. At least one of the main reasons for many people that do that in the face of facts.

Because these are people highly invested in their world views (whatever they may be!).... the way they literally see and experience the world is based on certain things....hell, morals and life plans can be based on this world view.
(when you believe a certain narrative so strongly)...

Then... they hear evidence stating things to the contrary.And? Well, it would take a lot of effect and energy and creative thought, humility, etc, to change your world view that you are that invested in. So? The solution? It must be a lie. A cover up. A conspiracy. The other side possibly is trying to achieve something so that creates ANGER. That anger makes you believe it more strongly because- if someone is spreading lies about (whatever), it must be important (etc.)

 

The part of the brain that is responsible for what you described above is part of the brain stem, and it's called the reticular activator. (I might've spelled that wrong).

But it rejects non-essential concepts, stimuli, and is the explanation for why those who live near train tracks can still sleep and get used to LOUD trains going by their houses...that stimuli is filtered out once they get used to it.

The downside is anybody with a particular belief system gets used to that and it's rules and customs and starts rejecting other people's perspectives and world views.

Humanity is just way to over dramatic, and it's because of their willingness to rise drama so high over certain concepts like slavery and segregation US history, that were so illogical from a cost savings perspective for the national budget, not to mention the irreversible loss of life.

Imagine how peaceful it would've been if the South had just phased out slavery gradually without having to start a war and cause death and massive property damage to both sides..yeah that's right CHEAPER FOR THE NATIONAL BUDGET and human life resources would've been spared.

You go to certain parts of Virginia, and they teach you that they didn't lose the civil war, they won it and that it wasn't an issue over slavery it was an issue over State's Rights.

I say the above because the same PATTERN, is what's driving capitol hill's gridlock and genuine people are angry over a false premise they've been fed willing to support a government shutdown, at the cost of the damage it does to the middle-class. (the DOW stock market index fell yesterday -139 points and today it fell -159 points again).

This isn't good for those rich or poor who have investments in businesses big or small, or for social security payments, pensions or anything else tied to the stock market. But they don't care because all of this is tantamount to addressing their falsely drummed up anxiety about the debt. (It's a problem but it doesn't need to cause the level of panic, emotional upset, and disfunction we're seeing from the Right politically)

You can tell they're angry over false premises because of the comments based in fear they keep saying that aren't true like:

1. Obamacare sets up death panels (factcheck and politifact, say this is false)

2. Congress is immune to Obamacare (also false, read some financial stuff people)

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...emption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html

Of all the misconceptions surrounding the new health reform law known as Obamacare—and there are many—one of the newest and most infuriating is the idea that Congress made itself “exempt” from a law that puts onerous new burdens on many other Americans. That contention is totally false.



In fact, members of Congress, along with their personal staffers, are required to participate in Obamacare, which is a more stringent requirement than employees of many big companies face.
The confusion is understandable. Earlier this year, Congress did, in fact, consider passing legislation that would amount to an exemption, though that never happened. Then, in August, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a speech that “President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception. And he did it because Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats who passed this thing came begging and said, ‘Please, please, please let us out of Obamacare.’” Nobody actually saw Harry Reid begging, but the claim gained traction nonetheless, and a chain email containing bogus information about Congress being exempt from Obamacare started to circulate.
Here’s what really happened. When the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, it included a passage that said: “The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff … are (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).”
In plain English, that means that at the end of this year, members of Congress and their personal staffs will no longer be eligible for the federal health care plan, and they’ll have to purchase insurance through an exchange instead. That requirement was initially proposed by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who opposed the law, as a kind of dare back in 2009, when legislators were still debating what would go in the bill. It caught on as a populist measure and made it into the final law.
Up until now, members of Congress, like all federal employees, have been able to select insurance from a government plan that’s similar to a lot of big-company plans, with one exception: It offers a lot more choices. In fact, the government plan, which has been in place for years, is remarkably similar to the exchanges established by the ACA.


The government, on average, pays about 75% of the premiums for members of Congress and other federal workers, while workers pay the other 25%. That’s comparable to what big firms kick in for coverage, says Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefits Research Institute.
With members of Congress and their staffs being forced to buy insurance on the exchanges beginning in 2014, the real question regarding Congress is how the government can continue to offer some sort of health care benefit for those federal employees, the way most big employers do, since it can no longer cover a portion of the premium. Few, if any, Congressional staffers would qualify for the low-income subsidies. That means their net insurance costs would rise considerably if they were forced to buy from an exchange with no support at all from their employer. The basic idea is to make Congressional employees whole by giving them a new benefit that’s more or less equal to what they’ll be losing when they can no longer participate in the government’s health care offerings.
The Office of Personnel Management, which is the government’s HR department, finally decided this summer that the government will give Congressional employees a tax-free subsidy roughly equivalent to the value of the benefit they’ve been getting until now. That will help offset the unsubsidized cost of insurance bought through an exchange. This rule led the conservative Heritage Foundation to declare that the OPM exceeded its authority by offering subsidies for a health plan it doesn’t administer, resulting in a “special Obamacare deal to Congress.” Cruz apparently picked up on that, and another Obamacare myth was born.

----

Jim DeMint (who now works for the Heritage Foundation) and Ted Cruz, are both part of the Tea Party panic movement within the Republican Party. They're largely to blame for the gridlock we have now.

 

Congress gets a 72% subsidy. We do not.

 

You don't say. No wonder you are so free and liberated from the oppressive yolk of obamanist propaganda taught in schools, along with 'facts' and 'theories'.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote IMO. In fact there should be mandatory tests to determine vote competency before a ballot is accepted. How can a country vote on whether or not to invade another country if the majority of people don't even know where it is on the map? How can you have a system of federal governance and global dominance that functions this way? If someone can't figure out how to problem solve a grade 12 math or geography problem, or can't articulate a short narrative or philosophical exercise, what business do they have being an input to a system which decides the fate of billions in the long run?

Lack of education is the true cancer eating away at the heart of america, and it is fueled by religious ignorance and a fetishizing of free market, radical individualism, social darwinism, isolationism, adolescent political manipulations and hypermasculine ideals.

 

Who would make this test that would decide if your smart enough to vote?

 

Probably Republicans.

 

Then i guess there would be some questions on the bible in there.

 

While I get that you want the country to have wise voters who aren't hoodwinked by political marketing during campaign seasons, these "tests" in order to gain the right to vote remind me of Jim Crow during segregation.


If voting tests were implemented it would be abused to an extreme by the political machine of any party.

Each State would make up its own test criteria...no just no it's a Pandora's Box full of problems.


What the nation needs are certified fact checkers that hold the media AND all political campaigns accountable to facts and pragmatic arguments and the public is going to have to trust these sources and have the ability to check the methods of these fact checking sources.

 

Hahahaha!

Well to answer your questions States would design the tests.

It falls under State law powers, and so the tests most likely will favor the political party a State is run by...and is always subject to change with the be and flow of State elections.

---

There needs to be a new political position whose sole job is to break political gridlock in Congress and nothing else, and has the authority to force straight up and down votes on the Congressional floors when it comes to issues mentioned in the Constitution like the full faith and credit of the country.

They couldn't write law, but when Congressional approval falls to a certain low, his job activates and he can force votes to occur on issues and strip earmarks out of stuff for simple transparent government work.

 

Cool, so we can still blame the illiterates in florida for ruining the elections...potentially

 

The inadequacy of the government school has made individual responsibility to obtain an "education" more important now , than ever before. When folks graduate universities owing 26k to the government and can only find fast food jobs at best , something is in disconnect. It seems the government has some kind of reverse midas touch. They seem to turn everything to feces. Perhaps , this is why my friend ran a price check on oby's "silver plan" ; Yes, he finally got through. Monthly:$597 ; $13,988 yearly deduct. Yup , feces. Health insurance for the price of a house payment.

 

Depending on where you lived...deductibles were already that high anyway or in that calibur of price anyway.

Stop making post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacies. (causation fallacies)

If the problem of high deductables existed before Obamacare...how is it Obamacare's fault.

And frankly I am seeing lower premiums, so there's SOME cost savings.

 

Well, Monk , I would not purchase the afore mentioned policy even if I was coerced. OOOPS. Ah, hey, if you like such a deal I believe they host an "anal" thread here at HIP.

I'm more concerned with the consequences of disobedience. The IRS is already gearing up for confiscations and gauranshees. Carry on , Comrade.

 

i wouldnt trust the states to be able to make decent tests, do you know what idiots voted those people that are making the tests into power? i think you do some of them are on this website.

 

Well all I can say is that I refer to the comment I said about Obamacare's pro/con results heavily depend on if the State has been cooperative or resisting the law, and other factors which are regional differences like the number of insurance providers in your State.

Some State legislatures (Georgia and Florida) have legally restricted what employees of the State can educate the people about what Obamacare does. That doesn't make sense, for a state legislature to do to it's people.

States had 3 years to prep, and set up State-run exchanges, and a good portion of Republican controlled State legislations dragged their feet, didn't do it and by default LET the Federal government run the Exchange. That shouldn't have happened. It's better if States run things because they know their local issues best.

So I'm not surprised your friend from (I'm assuming Florida because you say your from Daytona beach, Florida is having some trouble (assuming he's done the math right, and understands the subsidies he'll qualify for to help him).

A list of states I don't expect Obamacare to be super great for because they procrastinated on it are the following:

Missouri, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, and North Carolina

---

Also RIP, from my perspective since my family was paying premiums that were $1000+ a month on COBRA, that plan that you're friend can't afford and say is too expensive is a 50% reduction in what we were already paying for on the private market with deductibles that were already really high.

So from my real life perspective, that price IS affordable.

 

We agree. I don't like the concept of a "right to vote" test.

Access to the Right to Vote is probably the most fundamental aspect of a Democracy, whether it'd be a indirect or direct democracy.

Don't mess with it.

However I am not against some kind of indicators that tell representatives how educated voters are on certain topics, and how much a vote supporting one position is based on myth or facts.

For instance voters should be able to vote, but in addition they should say WHY or what convinced them to vote the way they did. That way everyone else knows if that constituent has the right balance of logic and emotion to their opinion, and a wiser rule can be devised by the Representatives.

The vote will still count, but at least there'd be better tracking of WHY people are voting the way they are and if that vote was propaganda inspired or real personal objective opinion inspired.