GatewayRedbirds.com

Socnorb11 wrote:

Radbird wrote:What else did you expect from the Daily Kommunist?

Which part do you disagree with, specifically?

I thought this was supposed to be affordable.

I'll take the fine, if I have a job when that rolls around.

BW23 wrote:I thought this was supposed to be affordable.

I'll take the fine, if I have a job when that rolls around.

I am pretty sure that I read if you don't have a job, or if you don't meet income limits you won't be fined.

docellis wrote:

BW23 wrote:I thought this was supposed to be affordable.

I'll take the fine, if I have a job when that rolls around.

I am pretty sure that I read if you don't have a job, or if you don't meet income limits you won't be fined.

If he doesn't have a job he can probably get health care for free with the medicaid expansion.

Well, looks like the crappy economy will help me avoid the fine. Yippee!!! One less thing to worry about.

Well, looks like the crappy economy will help me avoid the fine. Yippee!!! One less thing to worry about.

I'm looking forward to being able to actually purchase health insurance that provides maternity coverage, because currently there are no privately available insurance policies available in Texas that do that. And I find it insane that insurance companies get to dictate one of the most important decisions in a human being's life - whether or not to reproduce. Talk about death panels...they get the power over life as well.

Here in Washington State we had a bill before the state legislature called the Reproductive Parity Act, which would have made health insurance companies that offered maternity care coverage to also pay for abortions. It failed to pass. Now, even if you are in favor of abortions, I think you would have to agree that the NAME of this bill is all kinds of wrong. After all:

Maternity Care = reproduction
Abortion = definitely NOT reproduction

An interesting report on NPR this morning on part-time workers and the state exchanges.

Talked to someone in California and someone in Texas. Both work for companies that are ending health coverage for part-time workers in 2014 - Home Depot and Trader Joe's.

The Californian was pleasantly surprised as they are finding cheaper and better coverage than that given by Home Depot.

The Texan was surprised to find the exchange was more expensive.

The difference? Texas rejected the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare while California did not. This hits part-time workers near the poverty level hardest.

Now - lets think of the consequences. By mid-year 2014 people around the country are going to be hearing from friends and family about things like this. Pressure will grow for those states that spurned the Medicaid expansion (which was a total give-away from the Fed - the feds cover all the cost difference the first 3 years and will cover 90% going forward) to get on board that train. It is easy to see the people who rejected it being questioned why they didn't do something that so easily helped the working poor in their state at absolutely no cost to them in the near term and little cost in the future.

And now you understand why the GOP are scared [expletive] about this and don't want to see it go into affect. Because they rejected a health care system that looks like something a Republican governor first implemented simply because it was a black Democrat president who did it. And once people understand the pettiness and the painful repercussions on so many people because of that pettiness, the GOP will have lost a whole generation.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:An interesting report on NPR this morning on part-time workers and the state exchanges.

Talked to someone in California and someone in Texas. Both work for companies that are ending health coverage for part-time workers in 2014 - Home Depot and Trader Joe's.

The Californian was pleasantly surprised as they are finding cheaper and better coverage than that given by Home Depot.

The Texan was surprised to find the exchange was more expensive.

The difference? Texas rejected the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare while California did not. This hits part-time workers near the poverty level hardest.

Now - lets think of the consequences. By mid-year 2014 people around the country are going to be hearing from friends and family about things like this. Pressure will grow for those states that spurned the Medicaid expansion (which was a total give-away from the Fed - the feds cover all the cost difference the first 3 years and will cover 90% going forward) to get on board that train. It is easy to see the people who rejected it being questioned why they didn't do something that so easily helped the working poor in their state at absolutely no cost to them in the near term and little cost in the future.

And now you understand why the GOP are scared [expletive] about this and don't want to see it go into affect. Because they rejected a health care system that looks like something a Republican governor first implemented simply because it was a black Democrat president who did it. And once people understand the pettiness and the painful repercussions on so many people because of that pettiness, the GOP will have lost a whole generation.

OTOH, nothing is an accident. Texas rejected the medicaid expansion (which, as you say, really was just billions in free money) with Rick Perry claiming it was fiscal irresponsibility, a federal government overreach, etc. But in actuality, it's a trap move - now he can point to evidence next year that insurance rates in Texas went up under the ACA. Never mind the fact that this move inflicts death and suffering and higher expense on his lowest-income constituents - who gives a [expletive] about that, we have political points to score in a quest for the White House here!