http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/10/glitch-filled-launch-obamacare-site-decried-as-train-wreck/


How can you tax The People for not buying something from a website that doesn't work ..... getting rather comical at this point.

sleeper;1515709 wrote:She's not the only one. I know a lot of people that still haven't woken up to the fact that they are going to drop $100's of dollars a month on insurance that they will never use. Most of these people just have a part time job that mostly goes to paying back their student loan debt and vodka(cheap vodka too).

And young people will likely never use their car insurance either but it's responsible to carry it. We get it....rent seeking by teh p00rz really grinds your gears but rent seeking by young people (who must not be p00rz or close-to-p00rz or they'd qualify for subsidies) is A-Ok in your book!

QuakerOats;1515872 wrote: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State."

---Vladimir Lenin





Change we can believe in ...

How many times do you think Quaker posted this when W expanded an actual socialist program in Medicare Part D? My guess is zero. But Romey/Newt/HeritageCare that he would defend until the end of time if Republicans could actually win a national election sure brings out the QQ

BoatShoes;1515911 wrote:And young people will likely never use their car insurance either but it's responsible to carry it. We get it....rent seeking by teh p00rz really grinds your gears but rent seeking by young people (who must not be p00rz or close-to-p00rz or they'd qualify for subsidies) is A-Ok in your book!

Tell me more about how you are required to have Car Insurance if you do not drive or own a car?

BoatShoes;1515911 wrote:And young people will likely never use their car insurance either but it's responsible to carry it. We get it....rent seeking by teh p00rz really grinds your gears but rent seeking by young people (who must not be p00rz or close-to-p00rz or they'd qualify for subsidies) is A-Ok in your book!

Some won't, but young people pay higher car insurance because they are at higher risk of being in an accident. The health market is the exact opposite; the higher risk you are(ie. old people) the less you pay compared to young healthy people.

But I guess there's no point in even bothering with insurance; just have the government print as many dollars as it needs to cover the liability of all people in the US and then use the tax code to hold back currency demand.

BoatShoes;1515914 wrote:How many times do you think Quaker posted this when W expanded an actual socialist program in Medicare Part D? My guess is zero. But Romey/Newt/HeritageCare that he would defend until the end of time if Republicans could actually win a national election sure brings out the QQ

Yea, I do find it comical that people believe Obama is some Dictator in training who wants to rule the world. He is just a politician who has no clue what to do and is counting the days till he can hit the Public Speaking tour to rake in the cash.

pmoney25;1515917 wrote:Tell me more about how you are required to have Car Insurance if you do not drive or own a car?

You don't need health insurance if you're dead either? Are you really going to say it's not the personally responsible thing to do to insure yourself against catastrophic injury or illness...especially if you do not earn a large enough income to save dollars in that event??

People who don't have cars and don't buy insurance aren't being irresponsible. People who don't buy health insurance are being irresponsible and the irresponsibility directly harms the rest of us by their exclusion from the risk pool.

There is no 'risk pool'; we have community rating now; we have arrived in Utopia.

sleeper;1515918 wrote:Some won't, but young people pay higher car insurance because they are at higher risk of being in an accident. The health market is the exact opposite; the higher risk you are(ie. old people) the less you pay compared to young healthy people.

But I guess there's no point in even bothering with insurance; just have the government print as many dollars as it needs to cover the liability of all people in the US and then use the tax code to hold back currency demand.

Sicker people, smokers, people with pre-existing conditions still pay higher premiums with the help of subsidies under the ACA but they just won't be completely denied from the risk pool.

Indeed, you're idea is better. In fact if we had the healthcare costs of other advanced countries we'd save enough dollars from flowing around in the economy that we probably wouldn't even need the income tax lol.

BoatShoes;1515920 wrote:You don't need health insurance if you're dead either? Are you really going to say it's not the personally responsible thing to do to insure yourself against catastrophic injury or illness...especially if you do not earn a large enough income to save dollars in that event??

Being forced to buy something just because you're alive... (or you get fined).

BoatShoes;1515920 wrote:People who don't have cars and don't buy insurance aren't being irresponsible. People who don't buy health insurance are being irresponsible and the irresponsibility directly harms the rest of us by their exclusion from the risk pool.

Ummm, wow.

BoatShoes;1515911 wrote:And young people will likely never use their car insurance either but it's responsible to carry it. We get it....rent seeking by teh p00rz really grinds your gears but rent seeking by young people (who must not be p00rz or close-to-p00rz or they'd qualify for subsidies) is A-Ok in your book!

Actually you are 100% wrong again. Statistically young people will use their car insurance at MUCH higher rates than anyone else.

Come on Boat, that is such common knowledge how did you mess that one up? That's the reason that young peoples car insurance is more expensive than older people.

Oh, and the car insurance "mandate" is still a terrible example for one main reason. NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO BUY CAR INSURANCE. If you don't have a car or have the financial means you are not required to have car insurance.
Obamacare requires everyone to have health insurance even if they have the financial means.

jmog;1515942 wrote:Actually you are 100% wrong again. Statistically young people will use their car insurance at MUCH higher rates than anyone else.

Come on Boat, that is such common knowledge how did you mess that one up? That's the reason that young peoples car insurance is more expensive than older people.

Oh, and the car insurance "mandate" is still a terrible example for one main reason. NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO BUY CAR INSURANCE. If you don't have a car or have the financial means you are not required to have car insurance.
Obamacare requires everyone to have health insurance even if they have the financial means.

Jmog. It is true that young people use their car insurance more than other groups. It is also true that most young people will not use their car insurance. You are confusing usage between different groups vs. the prevalence of usage within a particular group. Hope this helps.

You're right, everyone has to purchase health insurance if they're alive. I suppose it is unfair to Paris Hilton to require her to pay a tax for not being in the risk pool since she will just use cash for everything.

TedSheckler;1515930 wrote:Being forced to buy something just because you're alive... (or you get fined).



Ummm, wow.

The word force does not mean what you think it means. Hope this helps. Charging Free-loading rent-seekers a fee for free-loading and rent-seeking does not constitute force.

BoatShoes;1515920 wrote:You don't need health insurance if you're dead either? Are you really going to say it's not the personally responsible thing to do to insure yourself against catastrophic injury or illness...especially if you do not earn a large enough income to save dollars in that event??

People who don't have cars and don't buy insurance aren't being irresponsible. People who don't buy health insurance are being irresponsible and the irresponsibility directly harms the rest of us by their exclusion from the risk pool.

1. Even people who have cars are not required to buy car insurance. They can show proof they are financially responsible and never pay a dime to car insurance.

2. If one doesn't want to pay for car insurance, one is perfectly allowed to use public transportation or bum rides or take a taxi everywhere (for crying out loud, 90% of people in NYC don't own cars and don't have car insurance).

3. Since when is it the government's job to legislate what is "responsible" and "not responsible" and then fine me for not being "responsible". Last I checked I don't see that anywhere in the constitution.

4. The ONLY reason liability insurance is required for cars (if one doesn't have personal financial responsibility) is because of the DIRECT cost to the person you hit/injure. You are NOT required to have coverage for your own car, even though that would be the responsible thing to do. The ACA would be similar to requiring EVERYONE to buy full coverage car insurance even if they don't want it, and don't have a car. Now THAT would be a direct comparison.

BoatShoes;1515945 wrote:Jmog. It is true that young people use their car insurance more than other groups. It is also true that most young people will not use their car insurance. You are confusing usage between different groups vs. the prevalence of usage within a particular group. Hope this helps.

You're right, everyone has to purchase health insurance if they're alive. I suppose it is unfair to Paris Hilton to require her to pay a tax for not being in the risk pool since she will just use cash for everything.

I believe you happen to be wrong, I would say that greater than 50% of people get in at least one accident from the age of 16 to 30, which would still make your claim false.

However, since insurance is supposed to be all about risk, comparing it to other age groups is EXACTLY how the actuaries come up with the costs. So that is why I used that example.

Obamacare is the only "insurance" in the world where the lowest risk pool is required to pay higher premiums to cover the costs of the highest risk pool. Please dispute that fact and provide evidence to your "most won't use it" theory of car insurance.

BoatShoes;1515949 wrote:The word force does not mean what you think it means. Hope this helps. Charging Free-loading rent-seekers a fee for free-loading and rent-seeking does not constitute force.

How is someone free loading if they never go to the hospital? The phrase free loading does not mean what you think it means either. Hope this helps.

BoatShoes;1515920 wrote: Are you really going to say it's not the personally responsible thing to do to insure yourself against catastrophic injury or illness...

Sure, it is PERSONALLY responsible. And it should end there. The Feds shouldn't have any involvement in a personal choice.

jmog;1515950 wrote:2. If one doesn't want to pay for car insurance, one is perfectly allowed to use public transportation or bum rides or take a taxi everywhere (for crying out loud, 90% of people in NYC don't own cars and don't have car insurance).

I demand that the government FORCE NYC public transportation freeloaders to buy car insurance so that my car insurance will be cheaper !!




Ohh, the absurdity of the radical leftist mind.

QuakerOats;1515966 wrote:I demand that the government FORCE NYC public transportation freeloaders to buy car insurance so that my car insurance will be cheaper !!




Ohh, the absurdity of the radical leftist mind.

There is not an alternative infrastructure for people to use who suddenly have an inelastic demand for healthcare services.

jmog;1515955 wrote:How is someone free loading if they never go to the hospital? The phrase free loading does not mean what you think it means either. Hope this helps.

A person who goes their entire life without using our medical infrastructure isn't a freeloader. You're right. They're passing that risk that they will suddenly have an inelastic demand for healthcare services and be unable to pay for it onto the rest for us instead of participating in the risk pool.

Pretty soon our electric and gas rates will go up to help pay for those that can't afford their bill. And if we elect to use electric instead of gas, we will be fined.

WebFire;1515976 wrote:Pretty soon our electric and gas rates will go up to help pay for those that can't afford their bill. And if we elect to use electric instead of gas, we will be fined.

teh P00rz who have trouble paying for gas are not comparable to cancer survivors, people with MS, etc. who are not insurable under individual based underwriting standards.

jmog;1515952 wrote:I believe you happen to be wrong, I would say that greater than 50% of people get in at least one accident from the age of 16 to 30, which would still make your claim false.

However, since insurance is supposed to be all about risk, comparing it to other age groups is EXACTLY how the actuaries come up with the costs. So that is why I used that example.

Obamacare is the only "insurance" in the world where the lowest risk pool is required to pay higher premiums to cover the costs of the highest risk pool. Please dispute that fact and provide evidence to your "most won't use it" theory of car insurance.

Why don't you provide a source to back up your claim that 50% of people 16-30 get into an auto accident?

What percentage of people do you think use medical services that they did not adequately save for between 16-30?

And, no...Obamacare is not the first thing to introduce community rating. Most states had some kind of community rating prior to. Haven't you heard prior to Obamacare stories about group insurance plans getting more expensive when the guy at the plant gets cancer, etc? Health insurance regulators have long used community rating regimes...it's just standardized nationally now to stop regulatory shopping.

BoatShoes;1515920 wrote:You don't need health insurance if you're dead either? Are you really going to say it's not the personally responsible thing to do to insure yourself against catastrophic injury or illness...especially if you do not earn a large enough income to save dollars in that event??

People who don't have cars and don't buy insurance aren't being irresponsible. People who don't buy health insurance are being irresponsible and the irresponsibility directly harms the rest of us by their exclusion from the risk pool.

It is responsible to purchase or have insurance. It is responsible to work out, eat better, look both ways before crossing the street, raise my children to be good people and productive members of society. I just don't jump to the conclusion the only answer is for the Federal Government to decide how to fix it.

I also enjoy this myth that somehow prior to Obamacare we were involved in some sort of Healthcare Capitialist utopia and that is why we need the government to step in. Government has been in involved in Healthcare for at least 50 years and in all honesty is the biggest culprit as to why healthcare cost have gone through the roof. They did the same exact thing to the Education system and what a coincidence those two things are the biggest causes of strain and debt for people today.

You guys are forgeting that this is a TAX. Everybody pays.... Some none other more than others.

It's the American way!