In 3 Minutes, He Nails What No One Wants To Hear About Those Canceled Health Plans

[InTheLight]

There is no truth to it. That is what you chose.

You're wrong, once again. It is true. My individual plan was a lousy, crappy plan. Everybody I know has better insurance. Everybody. I know because I've asked. I chose this plan because it fit my budget.

Most individual plans that were available in Minnesota that cost less than the ObamaCare plans were inferior plans. I know because I've researched them extensively.

 

[Revmitchell]

Again that is what you chose. But that does not make it substandard in the way the Obama and his ilk are claiming. Two entirely different things.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That is what you chose ...

You're wrong, once again ... I chose this plan ...

 

[Don]

Still haven't tried to rebut my post....

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Still haven't tried to rebut my post....

He and the other liberals have become guerrilla fighters: Pop up, take a shot, move on before anyone can draw a bead on them.

They have to. If they actually stood up and took a stand like men, they'd get buried by the fallout from their efforts to destroy democracy. Wars like this go on for years and one of two things happens: They eventually get wounded so much they can no longer fight, or the opposition grows weary and capitulates. Let's hope for the former.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Tell me something: Once you pay off your car, you're allowed to choose between continuing with full (comprehensive) coverage, or less coverage, or just liability. If your choice is going with liability and using the difference between comprehensive and liability to buy more food, which one is any reasonable person going to choose? (answer: Liability, of course; and use the extra money for things we couldn't previously afford while paying for comprehensive)

Bad analogy as you are comparing apples and oranges. We are not automobiles and the older we become the more likely we are to need comprehensive coverage ... in fact it is a guarantee as long as you do not die fast of a heart attack or accident.

The government has told us that we have to have comprehensive coverage, and isn't giving us the option of liability. Talking with a fellow employee the other day, I asked why I should change my plan to meet the Obamacare minimum standard, and pay for things like maternity care and other feminine-related items if I'm a single guy? His answer was, because someday I might get married.

What is wrong with helping take care of others? Do you care so little for others that you have no feeling if they suffer?

How does that make *any* sense? At the time I get married, her individual insurance plan and my individual insurance plan would either merge, or we'd change to a new "family" plan that covered us both, and would probably be cheaper than our individual plans. In the meantime, why don't I have the option for coverage that covers me, and doesn't cover things that I will never need, and ends up charging me more so that I can subsidize the insurance of other people?

Is it always, "me", "me", "me"? That does not fit my understanding of the teaching of Christ.

So CTB, please give this some careful, careful consideration: Is he really correct in what he says?

It takes some time to consider carefully. So, do not get upset if I take a bit of time to answer. Frankly, I would have liked more time to consider my response to your comment, but you seemed to be getting hyper about it. I have decided to generally not reply to smart ***, cutsie replies that really say nothing and are often an attempt to insult.

Read the article referenced in the thread entitled: 10 Reasons Reading the Bible Makes Me More Progressive.
Thanks for your consideration.

 

[InTheLight]

Again that is what you chose. But that does not make it substandard in the way the Obama and his ilk are claiming. Two entirely different things.

If my plan has less features, higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket costs, smaller network of doctors than 95% of all plans, yes IT IS SUBSTANDARD, by any definition. ObamaCare need not even be mentioned. It's not complicated.

 

[Don]

Tell me something: Once you pay off your car, you're allowed to choose between continuing with full (comprehensive) coverage, or less coverage, or just liability. If your choice is going with liability and using the difference between comprehensive and liability to buy more food, which one is any reasonable person going to choose? (answer: Liability, of course; and use the extra money for things we couldn't previously afford while paying for comprehensive)

Bad analogy as you are comparing apples and oranges. We are not automobiles and the older we become the more likely we are to need comprehensive coverage ... in fact it is a guarantee as long as you do not die fast of a heart attack or accident.

Bad analogy? Really? Wasn't being required to have automobile insurance one of the arguments used to justify forcing people to buy health care insurance? If it wasn't a bad analogy then, why is it a bad analogy now?

Further, consider your car. You said the older we get, the more likely we are to need comprehensive coverage; isn't the same true of a car? The older it gets, the more likely it is to break down; unless you're saying the analogy fails because we should just ship it off to a junk yard and get a new car, which makes the analogy comparable to "death panels"....

(BTW: Auto insurance was a bad analogy then, and it's not the best analogy now. The better analogy is "maintenance warranty")

What is wrong with helping take care of others? Do you care so little for others that you have no feeling if they suffer?

Strawman. You're not answering the actual question. Should the government have the right and authority to tell you that you have to pay for someone else's insurance? Isn't that the same as legalists telling you that you *have* to tithe?

Is it always, "me", "me", "me"? That does not fit my understanding of the teaching of Christ.

Scripture doesn't cover insurance, now does it? Which scriptural passage or principle are you using to justify this argument?

It takes some time to consider carefully. So, do not get upset if I take a bit of time to answer. Frankly, I would have liked more time to consider my response to your comment, but you seemed to be getting hyper about it. I have decided to generally not reply to smart ***, cutsie replies that really say nothing and are often an attempt to insult.

Frankly, how much effort would it have taken to simply say, "I'm not ignoring you; I'm considering it and will respond when I have a chance"? As old as you and I are, have we forgotten that common courtesy rules say we should at least acknowledge that we're working on a response? I did not intend to be a "smart ***"; my posts were a comment on your lack of acknowledgement.

Read the article referenced in the thread entitled: 10 Reasons Reading the Bible Makes Me More Progressive.
Thanks for your consideration.

I'll have to find that thread; once I do, I'll read it over, and I'll get back to you when I'm done.

 

[Don]

Read the article referenced in the thread entitled: 10 Reasons Reading the Bible Makes Me More Progressive.
Thanks for your consideration.

Done. Left comments in your thread, and to the article author.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If my plan has less features, higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket costs, smaller network of doctors than 95% of all plans, yes IT IS SUBSTANDARD, by any definition.

But again, you said it fits your budget. That's why you chose it. In this case, the "substandard" plan is your choice. Same with anyone else chooses it, or similar, plans. For you, for them, it is not substandard. It fits your needs. That's why you chose it. With the ACA, you don't have that choice. You have to pay for the higher coverage, which under the Act will also be substandard, not because of the policy necessarily, but because your healthcare providers cannot afford to treat you under its auspices.

 

[Don]

I've decided I want one of the "cadillac" plans. It'll run me approximately $1,800 a month. I've run my numbers, and about $800 is all I can afford. Who's gonna volunteer to pay $1,000 a month so I can get the plan?

Wait -- is this supposed to be based on my income? So I shouldn't even be considering the "cadillac" plans because I don't make enough to pay for it? But my income amount doesn't seem to qualify me for the plan I want, since I make too much to receive subsidies....

I'm confused. Why does it seem that only the 1%-ers can get the "cadillac" plans?

 

[poncho]

I've decided I want one of the "cadillac" plans. It'll run me approximately $1,800 a month. I've run my numbers, and about $800 is all I can afford. Who's gonna volunteer to pay $1,000 a month so I can get the plan?

Wait -- is this supposed to be based on my income? So I shouldn't even be considering the "cadillac" plans because I don't make enough to pay for it? But my income amount doesn't seem to qualify me for the plan I want, since I make too much to receive subsidies....

I'm confused. Why does it seem that only the 1%-ers can get the "cadillac" plans?

Because they wrote the law?