- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obamacare: Its the law of the land
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:35 am to Oenophile Brah
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:35 am to Oenophile Brah
quote:
No need to buy insurance today until you're sick tomorrow.
When the frick would you really need to buy it by to avoid the fine?
Serious question... Who is going to report you to the IRS? What "Date" determines whether you are covered or not? What if I signed up yesterday, make 1 payment, and then cancel in May?
1
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:41 am to Lsut81
quote:
What if I signed up yesterday, make 1 payment, and then cancel in May?
This was mentioned on a news show yesterday to a panel of reporters but guess what, no one had an answer. I really wish these show hosts would quit asking news people this and other questions regarding Obocare and start asking some of these questions to the politicians, especially Democrats, on what will happen when these things happen.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:53 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I really wish these show hosts would quit asking news people this and other questions regarding Obocare and start asking some of these questions to the politicians, especially Democrats, on what will happen when these things happen.
Two things:
1) Politicians don't know jack squat about this law, either, as NONE of them have ever bothered to read it.
2) Democrats have proven over and over that they like to lie about Obamacare.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:24 am to HonoraryCoonass
quote:
2) Democrats have proven over and over that they like to lie about Obamacare.
3) republicans like to lie about Obamacare as well
no one party has the monopoly on misinformation and half-truths.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:27 am to Lsut81
quote:If so... Good grief. All this upheaval to get 0.33% of the country insured.
1m are actually newly insured
Talk about tyranny of the minority!
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 10:29 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:35 am to Taxing Authority
I just hope this means I can now watch a basketball game in peace without Magic, Lebron, or Alonzo telling me to get covered when everyone knows for damn sure they ain't touching that shitty insurance
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:39 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
If so... Good grief. All this upheaval to get 0.33% of the country insured.
Thats where the number will likely be... I quickly broke it down about 2 weeks ago using the survey percentages... 1 week into March, the number came out around 590k were newly insured that had paid a premium.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 11:43 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
1m are actually newly insured
If so... Good grief. All this upheaval to get 0.33% of the country insured.
Talk about tyranny of the minority!
quote:
"Most of them were already insured": The argument here is that if we've just moved people from one insurance plan to another, we've just been wasting Americans' time and subjecting them to an onerous bureaucratic procedure as well.
The claim is based primarily on a survey in January from McKinsey and Co., which concluded that only 11% of exchange enrollees had been previously uninsured. A McKinsey survey a month later raised that figure to 27% -- still low, compared to expectations.
The major problem with the McKinsey survey is that doesn't say what its hawkers claim. The survey combines on-exchange enrollments and off-exchange enrollments; the latter are likely to heavily skew figures toward the previously insured because those are people merely signing up again with their existing carriers. The goal of the exchange marketplaces, however, is to reach uninsured Americans, and the McKinsey surveys fail to do that.
The few states that do break out their own numbers, moreover, contradict McKinsey. Kentucky says that some 75% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. New York says that about 60% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. That number has been rising over time, raising the prospect that the March surge will include an even higher ratio of uninsured customers; Gaba, who has calculated a time series of New York enrollments based on the state's monthly news releases, calculates that of enrollees in mid-February, at least 92% had been uninsured.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 11:44 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 11:48 am to BobBoucher
You're seriously trying to cite that piece of shite LA Times article???
Posted on 4/1/14 at 11:49 am to Lsut81
quote:
You're seriously trying to cite that piece of shite LA Times article???
why, becuase it doesnt fit your narrative?
Posted on 4/1/14 at 11:54 am to BobBoucher
quote:
why, becuase it doesnt fit your narrative?
No, because its a piece of shite article that is full of lies, falsehoods, and misinformation... Anyone with half a brain can see that.
But I guess you take comments like this as fact
quote:
the latter are likely to heavily skew figures
Likely to huh?
I guess if you wish hard enough and hope, it will come true? This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 11:56 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:01 pm to Lsut81
quote:
Likely to huh? I guess if you wish hard enough and hope, it will come true?
well yeah. how many people outside of the exchanges will have been previously uninsured?
near zero id guess.
If the goal is to measure the success of the exhanges reaching the uninsured, adding the non-exchange enrollments certainly dilutes the numbers.
Is that really so hard to understand?
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:04 pm to Lsut81
Pelosi posted the 9.5 number on her twitter acct. yesterday while jizzing in her panties only to recant her tweet, or take it down (I don't know how the tweets, twits, twats, whatever it's called actually work). I guess she forgot to read it before commenting.
Hadn't she done this before somewhere?
Hadn't she done this before somewhere?
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:05 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
Is that really so hard to understand?
It is obviously hard for you to understand the point in me posting that quote... The article is trying to discredit surveys by using the term "Likely".
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:07 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
LINK
quote:
BobBoucher
You don't see how it's extremely biased and slanted? If you read closer, it's obvious as hell. We already had a thread last night on that very article.
LINK to aforementioned thread.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:07 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Hadn't she done this before somewhere?
I hope that woman, along with Reid and a number of other prominent politicians, gets the worst case of hemorrhoids known to man....
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:32 pm to Sentrius
quote:
You don't see how it's extremely biased and slanted? If you read closer, it's obvious as hell. We already had a thread last night on that very article
you dont have to read close. its super obvious its biased as hell.
Thats doesnt change the possibility that if the numbers being reported are even remotely accurate, they strongly counter the info being pumped by sources like Fox.
The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News