Obama and his Lying Issues

[rob]

Your mom has insurance

[AlpineK]

Guessing Fairweather bought the cheapest plan he could find. Cheap enough it covered next to nothing and no longer meets minimum standards for insurance.

 

Obamacare is helping Fairweather even if he'll never say so.

[rob]

didn't Consumer Reports call FW's type of insurance policy "junk" policies -- i.e. worse than nothing?

[Fairweather]

Guessing Fairweather bought the cheapest plan he could find. Cheap enough it covered next to nothing and no longer meets minimum standards for insurance.

 

Obamacare is helping Fairweather even if he'll never say so.

 

Not sure how this will happen, since I have no intention of paying nearly $900/mo for his plan with all the "preventive" care I'll rarely use. I was completely happy with my $376/mo catastrophic policy. It protected my house and my assets and, in the long run, I found it much cheaper to negotiate a cash price with doctors/dentists for routine visits anyhow.

 

But I'm glad you're laughing that I lost my coverage. Nice.

[rob]

I was completely happy with my $376/mo catastrophic policy.

 

you paid $376 a month for catastrophic coverage????

 

I suspect I make more than you (but maybe not?), and have two dependents, and "bronze" insurance for me and my family on the WA exchange was just over $400 -- almost equivalent to the $376 you were paying but with actual coverage.

 

My sister recently purchased insurance on the exchange and her "bronze" level policy was also cheaper (and offered more) than her bullshit "catastrophic" noncompliant policy which she elected to replace. She has two children, as well.

 

Where did the $900 estimate come from? Let me guess, from the same insurance company that played tricks to get your non compliant (and cheap) policy canceled in the first place, right? I hope you shop around before accepting their inflated estimate. There was actually a warning from the Office of the Insurance Commissioner about this very thing.

 

edit: having a spouse is probably more expensive than dependents, and you're older than I am, so I instead calculated what my parents would pay, and it was still barely over $600. If you're so upset by all this, why not just pay the 1% fine (or, theoretically dont' even pay it) and invest your $400 a month instead. I bet that in the long run, smartly investing your $400 and saving that money for a rainy day will be far better than the bullshit coverage you were getting (I think this is why COnsumer Reports said that junk policies were "worse" than nothing).

Edited November 13, 2013 by rob

[Fairweather]

wahealthplanfinder.org.

 

And yes, our household income is above the subsidized threshold. Still not a final quote as they don't seem to have a real grasp on their own rate system. They say they'll call me back--then don't. Why are you shopping the plans if you have insurance through your employer?

 

 

[Fairweather]

edit: having a spouse is probably more expensive than dependents, and you're older than I am, so I instead calculated what my parents would pay, and it was still barely over $600. If you're so upset by all this, why not just pay the 1% fine (or, theoretically dont' even pay it) and invest your $400 a month instead. I bet that in the long run, smartly investing your $400 and saving that money for a rainy day will be far better than the bullshit coverage you were getting (I think this is why COnsumer Reports said that junk policies were "worse" than nothing).

 

This is exactly what I'll end up doing. I have to say that I have been amazed at how negotiable dr and dds rates are when you pay cash. I left "the system" about five months ago and have spent far less in dr bills than I did premiums in a "Cadillac" health plan through my former employer. One example: my wife had a crown fitted two months ago--$1300. When she pulled out cash, they gave her 40% off. Ironically, when we had dental, a crown was only covered at 50% "usual and customary" which really penned out to, guess what, 40%! Paying cash--at least for the smaller stuff--is at least a break-even prop to having insurance. I am coming to believe that the insurance market maybe should be catastrophic only. The auto insurance industry operates this way, eg, they don;t cover routine maintenance--only wrecks. And their rates reflect market realities because of it. No so the medical insurance industry--pre or post ACA. The market will continue to be artificially inflated by masses who are insulated from the cost of their care--and doctors/hospitals willing to take advantage of this fact.

[rob]

Wow, I've never gotten more than 10% off for paying cash, and I've paid a lot of cash to doctors

 

you must be a better negotiator than me.

 

also, this

Edited November 13, 2013 by rob

[Fairweather]

I'm still waiting for you to reveal the details of your earlier claim that Republicans told Southerners they could keep their slaves.

seems remarkable a man w/ a taste for history would need the details, but okay

 

from part of wikipedia's page on lincoln's first inaugural address:

 

Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on "those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement." The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that "by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time:

 

1.Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

 

5.Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained.

 

6.Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.

 

 

Sorry Ivan (and Off), but you're trying to pull off a neat little trick. Your claim was that the Republican Party told the southern states they could keep their slaves. They certainly did no such thing. The Republican Party Platform of 1860 spells it out in plain language in position statement #8 and elsewhere:

 

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

 

Also: Supplementary Resolution. Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native States and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions; and we hold the Democratic Party responsible for this gross violation of that clause of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

 

You're right about political deception, I suppose. When a candidate--be it Obama or Lincoln--goes off script, it creates confusion and angst. Certainly the south saw right through Lincoln's lies. Still, you seem hung up on credentials, so I acknowledge and congratulate you on your board certification. And to answer Off White's standard Drudge/FoxNews nonsense, as well as your little barb, I not too long ago completed my M.A. at the University of Washington in a closely-related field, so this stuff is pretty fresh.

 

 

 

[Crux]

...The market will continue to be artificially inflated by masses who are insulated from the cost of their care--and doctors/hospitals willing to take advantage of this fact.

 

Ah yes, the efficiency of the market, exposed!

[rob]

balls

[Fairweather]

??

[ivan]

I'm still waiting for you to reveal the details of your earlier claim that Republicans told Southerners they could keep their slaves.

seems remarkable a man w/ a taste for history would need the details, but okay

 

from part of wikipedia's page on lincoln's first inaugural address:

 

Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on "those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement." The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that "by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time:

 

1.Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

 

5.Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained.

 

6.Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.

 

 

Sorry Ivan (and Off), but you're trying to pull off a neat little trick. Your claim was that the Republican Party told the southern states they could keep their slaves. They certainly did no such thing. The Republican Party Platform of 1860 spells it out in plain language in position statement #8 and elsewhere:

 

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

 

Also: Supplementary Resolution. Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native States and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions; and we hold the Democratic Party responsible for this gross violation of that clause of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

 

You're right about political deception, I suppose. When a candidate--be it Obama or Lincoln--goes off script, it creates confusion and angst. Certainly the south saw right through Lincoln's lies. Still, you seem hung up on credentials, so I acknowledge and congratulate you on your board certification. And to answer Off White's standard Drudge/FoxNews nonsense, as well as your little barb, I not too long ago completed my M.A. at the University of Washington in a closely-related field, so this stuff is pretty fresh.

 

 

meh, seems mighty, mighty fine hairs yer trying to split - parties platforms are of course largely irrelevant when you look at the actual words of the candidates they immediately put forth as their champions (exemplified in lincoln's inaugural, which you wisely don't contest, and which is incredibly obviously a blow-job for pro-slavery types) - this platform of 1860 you offer, though more anti-slavery than lincoln for sure, is hardly promising to end slavery everywhere, and lincoln is extremely careful in promising southerners they can keep their (human) property

 

if you look back to page 1 though, you'll see my original point is still valid - the republican party was indeed from the outset based on a big old bent promise: "we don't like slavery, but we'll continue to tolerate it in principle" - not at all dissimilar from modern democrats saying "we want private healthcare, but we're gonna try to create a new system that gets rid of it"

[ivan]

hmmm...did your last post morph fw? seems like i just wrote a response to something i saw hours ago, as i'd thought to add that i don't think i've ever got hung up on credentials on this here website - i went to an extremely haughty university indeed, but learned quickly there were fucking wastoids w/o a wit of sense everywhere - have i anywhere on this board suggested a lack of academic credentials invalidates an argument? sheeeeit, my day-to-day is rife w/ arguing w/ the absolutely uninformed...

[slab_master]

didn't Consumer Reports call FW's type of insurance policy "junk" policies -- i.e. worse than nothing?

 

yeah, and they also called for gmo labeling.

 

go figure.

[Fairweather]

hmmm...did your last post morph fw? seems like i just wrote a response to something i saw hours ago, as i'd thought to add that i don't think i've ever got hung up on credentials on this here website - i went to an extremely haughty university indeed, but learned quickly there were fucking wastoids w/o a wit of sense everywhere - have i anywhere on this board suggested a lack of academic credentials invalidates an argument? sheeeeit, my day-to-day is rife w/ arguing w/ the absolutely uninformed...

 

Not sure what you're trying to convey, but no--no after the fact changes to posts. I swear.

[glassgowkiss]

edit: having a spouse is probably more expensive than dependents, and you're older than I am, so I instead calculated what my parents would pay, and it was still barely over $600. If you're so upset by all this, why not just pay the 1% fine (or, theoretically dont' even pay it) and invest your $400 a month instead. I bet that in the long run, smartly investing your $400 and saving that money for a rainy day will be far better than the bullshit coverage you were getting (I think this is why COnsumer Reports said that junk policies were "worse" than nothing).

 

This is exactly what I'll end up doing. I have to say that I have been amazed at how negotiable dr and dds rates are when you pay cash. I left "the system" about five months ago and have spent far less in dr bills than I did premiums in a "Cadillac" health plan through my former employer. One example: my wife had a crown fitted two months ago--$1300. When she pulled out cash, they gave her 40% off. Ironically, when we had dental, a crown was only covered at 50% "usual and customary" which really penned out to, guess what, 40%! Paying cash--at least for the smaller stuff--is at least a break-even prop to having insurance. I am coming to believe that the insurance market maybe should be catastrophic only. The auto insurance industry operates this way, eg, they don;t cover routine maintenance--only wrecks. And their rates reflect market realities because of it. No so the medical insurance industry--pre or post ACA. The market will continue to be artificially inflated by masses who are insulated from the cost of their care--and doctors/hospitals willing to take advantage of this fact.

Actually accepting different cash prices is highly illegal, and medical offices can't really legally do it HIPPA specifically prohibits that.

And FW you really have no idea of medical costs. Simple appendectomy will cost you about 20K- that is if you don't have to stay in a hospital for more then a day. A day in ICU can cost you up to 125 grand, heck simple chemo infusion is usually 3-5K, not to mention if you are diagnosed with something like MS, you monthly bill will be around 20K for basic meds. You are truly living in a la-la land.

 

[glassgowkiss]

Guessing Fairweather bought the cheapest plan he could find. Cheap enough it covered next to nothing and no longer meets minimum standards for insurance.

 

Obamacare is helping Fairweather even if he'll never say so.

 

Not sure how this will happen, since I have no intention of paying nearly $900/mo for his plan with all the "preventive" care I'll rarely use. I was completely happy with my $376/mo catastrophic policy. It protected my house and my assets and, in the long run, I found it much cheaper to negotiate a cash price with doctors/dentists for routine visits anyhow.

 

But I'm glad you're laughing that I lost my coverage. Nice.

Who is laughing are canadians: $66.50 per person or $133 for family of three or more. Are you still insisting US has a better healthcare?

[Fairweather]

edit: having a spouse is probably more expensive than dependents, and you're older than I am, so I instead calculated what my parents would pay, and it was still barely over $600. If you're so upset by all this, why not just pay the 1% fine (or, theoretically dont' even pay it) and invest your $400 a month instead. I bet that in the long run, smartly investing your $400 and saving that money for a rainy day will be far better than the bullshit coverage you were getting (I think this is why COnsumer Reports said that junk policies were "worse" than nothing).

 

This is exactly what I'll end up doing. I have to say that I have been amazed at how negotiable dr and dds rates are when you pay cash. I left "the system" about five months ago and have spent far less in dr bills than I did premiums in a "Cadillac" health plan through my former employer. One example: my wife had a crown fitted two months ago--$1300. When she pulled out cash, they gave her 40% off. Ironically, when we had dental, a crown was only covered at 50% "usual and customary" which really penned out to, guess what, 40%! Paying cash--at least for the smaller stuff--is at least a break-even prop to having insurance. I am coming to believe that the insurance market maybe should be catastrophic only. The auto insurance industry operates this way, eg, they don;t cover routine maintenance--only wrecks. And their rates reflect market realities because of it. No so the medical insurance industry--pre or post ACA. The market will continue to be artificially inflated by masses who are insulated from the cost of their care--and doctors/hospitals willing to take advantage of this fact.

Actually accepting different cash prices is highly illegal, and medical offices can't really legally do it HIPPA specifically prohibits that.

And FW you really have no idea of medical costs. Simple appendectomy will cost you about 20K- that is if you don't have to stay in a hospital for more then a day. A day in ICU can cost you up to 125 grand, heck simple chemo infusion is usually 3-5K, not to mention if you are diagnosed with something like MS, you monthly bill will be around 20K for basic meds. You are truly living in a la-la land.

 

Yes, I'm aware of all this. And it's why I liked the catastrophic coverage I had which covered these "big ticket" items over $20,000.

[glassgowkiss]

I don't think you are aware of much. Earlier you were spouting about price negotiations for medical offices. If you were aware what HIPPA is, you'd know that the maximum discount hospitals and clinic can give you (by law) for payment at the time of service is 10%. Second- even though ER will be forced to treat your sorry cheap ass, clinic don't have to do that and most of them will require payment in advance for services not covered under your useless policy. The same goes for pharmacies. You are just a potential free loader, with the rest of the worthless policy owners, who stiff tax payers and private businesses with unpaid medical bills.

And can you logically explain why are you still insisting US healthcare is better then in Canada, since in B.C a family of 3 (or larger) pays $133 for insurance that covers everything, while you pay more then twice that for policy that is essentially worth as much as used toilet paper?

[Fairweather]

I don't think you are aware of much. Earlier you were spouting about price negotiations for medical offices. If you were aware what HIPPA is, you'd know that the maximum discount hospitals and clinic can give you (by law) for payment at the time of service is 10%. Second- even though ER will be forced to treat your sorry cheap ass, clinic don't have to do that and most of them will require payment in advance for services not covered under your useless policy. The same goes for pharmacies. You are just a potential free loader, with the rest of the worthless policy owners, who stiff tax payers and private businesses with unpaid medical bills.

And can you logically explain why are you still insisting US healthcare is better then in Canada, since in B.C a family of 3 (or larger) pays $133 for insurance that covers everything, while you pay more then twice that for policy that is essentially worth as much as used toilet paper?

 

Reading comprehension problems again? I can afford the under $20,000 stuff. This makes me a freeloader? Fuck off. Anyhow, not sure someone in your bogus so-called "medical" field should be spouting off about HIPPA or should be claiming any sort of medical knowledge about much of anything.

 

Edit: As for your 10% limit on discounts, you have no idea what you're talking about. Did you just make that shit up, you stupid tool? Private practice docs (for the time being) are free to sell their services for whatever they damn well please. I just made an appointment for next Monday--50% off cash at time of service, prearranged.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2013 by Fairweather

[glassgowkiss]

 

Edit: As for your 10% limit on discounts, you have no idea what you're talking about. Did you just make that shit up, you stupid tool? Private practice docs (for the time being) are free to sell their services for whatever they damn well please. I just made an appointment for next Monday--50% off cash at time of service, prearranged.

 

No they are not, as long as they are contracted with insurance companies. If you have cash only practice (on a rare occasion some offices do), they you are not bound by any laws, and you can price whichever way you see fit. However if you are in contractual agreements (Medicare, Medicaid, L&I and private insurance),they your cash price has to be the same as you medical billing price. You can give up to 10% discount for the payment at the time of service. So whoever is giving you 50% discount is actually braking the law in this state.

[Fairweather]

My PCP is a general practitioner at Franciscan Health (St. Joseph Hospital in Tacoma). I guess you know more than they do.

[olyclimber]

awesome, glad i'm not the only one here doing PCP.

[ivan]

rules for pcp:

 

- not before church

- not when grandma's over

- never with laotians