jclalor

Hmmm...seems a bit off. Just like the title of your thread.

It's a political pissing contest. But thanks for the political add that you linked. http://m.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/westchester-democrats-launch-new-attack-gop-rob-astorino-blog-entry-1.1774530

Hah. Welcome to Obama care Amen. It must really suck to see the ACA getting more and more successful as time goes on.

Perhaps it's just economics; children who eat lower priced chicken (legs, wings, and thighs) could come from lower economic class environments. Children who eat higher pricef boneless breast could come from higher economic class environments. I think we need further studies.

When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet. It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

Good call. Stone Arrogant Bastard. A PA, on a Mod? Wow.. You have balls, buddy ;-)Arrogant Bastard Ale "This is an aggressive ale. You probably won’t like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth. We would suggest that you stick to safer and more familiar territory–maybe something with a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at convincing you it’s made in a little brewery, or one that implies that their tasteless fizzy yellow beverage will give you more sex appeal. Perhaps you think multi-million dollar ad campaigns make things taste better. Perhaps you’re mouthing your words as you read this. " Don I've got about 4 cases of Arrogant Bastard pint glasses with the above description on the side, there cool glasses. If anyone wants any just, handle the shipping and a set is yours. http://www.worldmarket.com/product/mobile/arrogant-bastard-pint-glasses-set-of-2.do

You and your friends from the uber-right seem to have a very difficult time of grasping our First amendment. Perhaps your tri-cornered hats are on a little tight.

He could have taken advantage of a state or Federal Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. While I'm not aware of every state regulation, what federal option are you speaking of?

Only if he's making more than 400% of the federal poverty level which is $62,920 for a family of 2 and somewhat higher than the $51K median household income. At the $51K median income he'd only have been required to spend $4845 out of pocket for himself and his spouse, which is $201 each monthly. As a single person his cut-off would be $46,680 dictating a $4434 annual bill which is $369 a month. The context of my answer was what would be the worst case scenario.

And once again I ask how is that those people that belive the State is completely inept at everything thing that they do , have no problem trusting them when it comes to executing it's citizens.

I just checked Covered California, for a 60 year old on a silver plan with $6250 max yearly OOP, his monthly premium would be $822 a month. Remind us again how much better off an uninsured 60 year old with pre-existing conditions would be before the ADA? And try using facts as opposed to the shit you seem to just make up.

My understanding is that is only applicable if the new policy is also through an employer not an individual policy. He would not be moving to a new job until he recovers from his injuries, so I don't think that is applicable here. Look, if this is a real situation your friend really needs to see an attorney. ACA is new and the provisions have not been tried out in court. IF he gets let go he can get a plan on the exchange (sure) but only if he has the $10k it will take to pay the 12 month premiums AND the $5k deductible. Plus of if it is any way work related there are disability issues to deal with. Plus if he can't do physical labor he may have a hard time getting work. Even an office worker would be tough as he would need really good guidance on how to handle the hiring process. No employer wants to hire a potential massive medical liability. This is a bad situation all around. With out knowing his age, income, or what states he's from it would be impossible to say how much his premiums would be. $10,000 a year would certainly be the absolute worst case scenario for someone older and did not qualify for a subsidy, I Not worst case - Add smoker (don't know if he is or not) and his pre existing condition - which is not even close to "free" just now mandatory coverage - he could be paying twice that per year. Pre-existing conditions are not a factor, you seriously did not know that? So your understanding of the ADA is that pre-existing conditions are a factor in the cost of your premium but 6 years ago they weren't ?

My understanding is that is only applicable if the new policy is also through an employer not an individual policy. He would not be moving to a new job until he recovers from his injuries, so I don't think that is applicable here. Look, if this is a real situation your friend really needs to see an attorney. ACA is new and the provisions have not been tried out in court. IF he gets let go he can get a plan on the exchange (sure) but only if he has the $10k it will take to pay the 12 month premiums AND the $5k deductible. Plus of if it is any way work related there are disability issues to deal with. Plus if he can't do physical labor he may have a hard time getting work. Even an office worker would be tough as he would need really good guidance on how to handle the hiring process. No employer wants to hire a potential massive medical liability. This is a bad situation all around. With out knowing his age, income, or what states he's from it would be impossible to say how much his premiums would be. $10,000 a year would certainly be the absolute worst case scenario for someone older and did not qualify for a subsidy, I

But you would have to disclose the condition in the application, and that would have considerable impact on the policy rate. Odds are, he would have had to endure a rough year (or whatever period of time) until ACA policies were available, or until he could get hired by an employer with a suitable group policy. But if the condition untreated made it impossible for him to work reasonably, it would be hard to get hired. (Or marry into a plan?) These problems were a strong impetus behind the reform push. The general issue of cost controls was a driver, but ACA hasn't done much to solve that. The series of events was: 1) Employed 2) Found out about the cancer 3) Went to treatment, and that took too much time away from work, and was let go. 4) He purchased a plan individually, continued his treatment, 5) He found another job, and because there was no lapse in coverage, he was able to continue his coverage even after 5 months of unemployment. Do you have any other evidence? (outside of Yahoo answers)

And here I thought God was your co-pilot.

You forget where if you are still insured you can transfer insurance before you lose your soon to be old insurance. Similar thing happened to my brother in law - as long as there is not a lapse in coverage, he didn't lose insurance and wasn't disqualified for pre existing. He had cancer BTW. I've tried find anything that's close to what you are suggesting, do you have more information on this? I threw out all my pre-Obamacare insurance literature when I lost the plan I was told I could keep. BUT . . just after ONE search try . . . I found this.*** If you loose your job, you loose your insurance unless you enroll in COBRA. The link you provided is old news, if you leave an employer and their group plan, and then join another health plan from a new employer, they can't require a waiting period for pre-existing conditions. This issue has 0 (zero) bearing on the OP. If this situation had happend to him Pre-Obamacare, he would be fucked. Perhaps you should have read the OP more than ONCE.

You forget where if you are still insured you can transfer insurance before you lose your soon to be old insurance. Similar thing happened to my brother in law - as long as there is not a lapse in coverage, he didn't lose insurance and wasn't disqualified for pre existing. He had cancer BTW. I've tried find anything that's close to what you are suggesting, do you have more information on this?

Could you kindly cite your source for the claims that you have made?

He was just banned for life from the NBA and must sell the team. It's bad week for racist.

Imagine what would happen if the parents took responsibility and quit making the nanny state take care of them. That's a separate issue. To be fair to Parents, though. They're not standing there in the cafeteria when their kids are buying some of the worst possible foods for them... I wish I remembered the name of that documentary I mentioned. It showed the problem very clearly. Many school cafeterias don't offer ANYTHING that's healthy, anymore. We had Pizza Day, and Hot Dog Day, and grilled cheese day, and Hamburger Mac and Cheese day, and Sub Sammich Day. We didn't have but one or two "Fat Kids" in about . . . 900 or so kids. What happened since then? I'm guessing your question is rhetorical. No - it was 5 meals out of 35. Parents are responsible for the other 30 meals. What happens in the child's life is their responsibility, not the government's. When I was a kid I ate nothing but crap , just like all of my friends. The big difference now is that kids just sit on their ass, they have no comprehension what it means to "Go outside and play" their all lazy fucks who are developing type 2 diabetes by the age of 10. When parents got all crazy about "Stranger danger" and refused to let their kids outside to go play in the neighborhood, they were doomed.

Imagine what would happen if the parents took responsibility and quit making the nanny state take care of them. That's a separate issue. To be fair to Parents, though. They're not standing there in the cafeteria when their kids are buying some of the worst possible foods for them... I wish I remembered the name of that documentary I mentioned. It showed the problem very clearly. Many school cafeterias don't offer ANYTHING that's healthy, anymore. We had Pizza Day, and Hot Dog Day, and grilled cheese day, and Hamburger Mac and Cheese day, and Sub Sammich Day. We didn't have but one or two "Fat Kids" in about . . . 900 or so kids. What happened since then? I'm guessing your question is rhetorical.

4 year old links are sketchy, but basing you life on a 2000+ year old book is completely logial. Perhaps posting when I'm totally fucking drunk is not the best of ideas, my spelling may have been fucking up but where did I go wrong with my math? You mean one that describes basic arithmetic?

4 year old links are sketchy, but basing you life on a 2000+ year old book is completely logial.

Some would say that living in a society that is armed to the teeth is really no freedom at all. I never understood where the right to a "well regulated militia" transformed into arming every single swinging dick walking down the street. One thing is for sure, you can never go wrong when it comes to fear mongering, The gun industry and the NRA are laughing all the way to the bank. Gee whiz, you sure show a clear understanding of advanced civilizations like Switzerland. Evidently a little better than your understanding. The vast majority of Swiss government issued firearms are not issued with ammunition, only a couple of thousand reservist, who will be stationed at airports durning national emergencies are issued ammunition to keep at home. It is also very difficult to get a CC permit, one must have a clean background and show a very clear security reason why it's needed. That's just a little different, don't ya think? Y Was that the way it was when you lived there? Perhaps you could provide some evidence, outside of your anecdotal evidence.

Some would say that living in a society that is armed to the teeth is really no freedom at all. I never understood where the right to a "well regulated militia" transformed into arming every single swinging dick walking down the street. One thing is for sure, you can never go wrong when it comes to fear mongering, The gun industry and the NRA are laughing all the way to the bank. Gee whiz, you sure show a clear understanding of advanced civilizations like Switzerland. Evidently a little better than your understanding. The vast majority of Swiss government issued firearms are not issued with ammunition, only a couple of thousand reservist, who will be stationed at airports durning national emergencies are issued ammunition to keep at home. It is also very difficult to get a CC permit, one must have a clean background and show a very clear security reason why it's needed. That's just a little different, don't ya think?