Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

They would have been had the fellow maintained continuous coverage. That is, in large part, what COBRA is all about in the first place. It gives you an easy opt-in after losing company-sanctioned insurance (albeit it at an unreasonably high price) so that you can maintain continuity of coverage and avoid precisely this pitfall.

I can't remember precisely what I used to pay for coverage when I was a salaried employee, but I recall that it fairly trivial- maybe $60 a month or so. Obviously this was in part due to subsidy by my employer, but like I said before- if you can't find a good plan for around $150 for a healthy single person, you're doing something wrong.

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

Those were projections, not promises. Projection are best guesses based on availible data, trends, history etc. Sometime they are write, sometimes wrong.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Sometimes wrong? Seriously, why does everyone want the gov't to handle everything and/or ANYTHING? The failure and efficiency rate is retarded. I mean for god's sake, Obama can't even get Gitmo closed (Let alone make a decision on troops in Afganistan), and that was sooooo 9 months ago.

Nothing wrong with working out a way to get cheaper health care and universal access, but if you honestly think the current legislation is anywhere in the right direction you're out of your mind.

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

And you have a good plan that is a sure fire success I suppose???

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

The one we have now that functions well enough for 98% of the population. We have other **** we need to be worrying about, like the 10%+ of people who won't be able to pay for any kind of insurance because they don't have a job.

wayne_curr

iTrader: (8)

Actually it only works for 85% of the population. I'd say it is a considerable issue when 15% of the population has no coverage.

I could be just as insensitive toward jobless people (me). Just a bunch of lazy bums. Walmart is always hiring.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

15% yes, but like always they are including the ones who willingly don't have insurance. I had the chance for insurance at my last job, and did carry it for a while until the rates went up and I wasn't willing to give 1/6 of my check to insurance I never use. I haven't looked at any figures but I bet more than half of that 15% are willingly without insurance. No plan they EVER pass will give everyone insurance. Nothing will ever be perfect, people will just have to accept that some people will have to go without. I know that isn't the American way, but sometimes it can't be helped. And like always, health care isn't a right. If you don't have it, it isn't the governments fault or place to give you/make you be insured.

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

Thats a big problem, you have people who could have insurance but don't because they either don't want to spend the money or can't afford too, so when they have a tragedy, the tax payers pay for it.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Not all, but some yes. I still don't think forcing everyone to have insurance with THIS particular bill is the answer to all of our problems. Instead of ******* up everyone else's insurance situation, they could just assist or outright buy everyone who doesn't have insurance a policy. Surely as hell would be less complicated and costly. Especially it wouldn't consists of a 2000 page bill that no one could possibly comprehend, surely with some bad **** hidden away in it.

wayne_curr

iTrader: (8)

I'm sorry you work at a place that offers such crappy benefits. The last job I had with benefits had free insurance that kicked ***. If I stepped up to the awesome plan it only cost me 15 bucks a month.

Costco is hiring and has awesome benefits. I have my 3rd interview tomorrow

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

It was a medical lab too When I started we did have good insurance, only like $11 every check ($22/month) for medical, eye and dental, but then they changed something and it went to over $150/month and we lost the eye and dental, it was extra. Still not too bad compared to a lot of insurance, but considering before my ER visit last month I hadn't been to a doctor in close to 10 years, I didn't need it. Would figure that 2 months after I quit work and lose my insurance I have to go to the damn emergency room. Fortunately it only cost me about $1200, I was expecting it to be much much higher. My mom was saying her last ER visit ended up costing the insurance company over $10k... thats crazy.

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

People that have insurance can keep what they have, so who's forcing you? And speak for youself, I had no trouble comprehending it, and I'm not a genius. Granted, there we a few sections I had to read more than once, but I figured it out.

neogenesis2004

iTrader: (12)

How does this apply to families where one spouse has insurance for the family and the other purposely doesn't get it at their job. I work in the Defense Industry (Doesn't everyone in NOVA?) and I know at least 1/2 of the people I work with work for their own companies on independent contracts purposely so that any benefits that they may get had they worked for the company, they would instead just collect in their paycheck. Their spouses then get health insurance to cover the family at their job. I think you could accurately say 300k+ people in the NOVA area do this and not be over exaggerating. I'm wondering how this legislation would apply to those families.

One spouse works for their own company, that does not give its only employee any insurance (purposefully), and the other spouse covers the health insurance through their job. Since the company is not providing insurance to its owner, would it be fined, even though that person is covered through the family plan?

Grey area?

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Uh huh... I'm sure you did. 99% of politicians haven't read it, but you have made time to read 2000 pages of line after line of technical **** that most politicians don't even understand and you comprehended it fine. I'm still calling BS on you sir.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

sole proprieterships are probably exempt from providing insurance. especially if all their employees are contractors. the contractors would be on their own anyway but since the dude's spouse covers him, it's all ok.

magnamx-5

iTrader: (7)

awesome my ***, if i wont shell out for 100 a month what makes you think i will shell out for 200-300. Those people who pay 400+ a month probly make 3 times what i do and have some stupid ***, hypocondriac policy. And the last time i checked kids are covered under WICK in KY so whatever and your taxpayer BS is exactly that BS. So find a new catch phrase to hang your hat on. FWIW the government did a good job running the airlines and airports **** was on time and not to damn expensive.

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

Like I said, I could give a **** if you believe me. The fact that you are too lazy to read it and to stupid to comprehend it is not my problem. It wasn't 2000 pages, and if it was in normal font and margins it would be not be anywhere near 1000. I have not read the one they just passed, like I said earlier, I read the orginal house bill, but I plan to read this one also. Some of us take the time to read **** we feel is important. And some of use have enough education to comprehend it.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Keep up the lies.

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

Dumbass.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

You know what, i feel great when i'm duing almost full time college and almost full time job however i cant get health insurance because my job needs me to work fulltime while to be on my parents plan i have to be full time at school yet on the other hand i need a job to help pay for my school and i need school to get a better job.

I'd rather pay extra to have that **** than go into a hospital (in my case kidney stones) and have to spend an hour with some dumb bimbo asking me how to spell my name or my address and other stupid **** while my kidneys are being torn apart by ****** stones. Screw that ****.

Luckily back then i had insurance since i managed to find somewhat good class times yet still have few days in my job.