Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

It's a Team's Life Government Shutdown: It's a Teams Life

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
Yep, the plan all along. But FIRST! Ruin as many lives as they can. :mad: As I have said on this from day one, this plan has NOTHING to do with providing health care, it is all about control.
One thing for sure................"watch what they do, not what they say". The whole plan is a disaster, but it is bad enough that it really does look like another agenda at work.
Doesn't look like they exempted themselves from it by accident. :rolleyes:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
One thing for sure................"watch what they do, not what they say". The whole plan is a disaster, but it is bad enough that it really does look like another agenda at work.
Doesn't look like they exempted themselves from it by accident. :rolleyes:
I don't know what to do. We cannot afford ANY plan out there. I CAN'T work two jobs, like I would have in the past, and load rates are falling. I am 62, I can no longer start over. I am SCARED and VERY ANGRY. Not a good combination.

Obama is a Marxist and a LOT of FOOLS fell for it. It may be too late to fix it.

Another agenda? You bet there is and it does NOT have the welfare of the poor and down trodden in mind. It is a total take over of the country, a coup. May all who run and support it rot. What they are doing to hard working, honest, law abiding citizens is a crime. They will destroy as many lives as they can to get what they are after. They are doing a VERY good job at it.

OH, I need to cuss right now! Darn filters! :p I would hit the wall but I cannot afford to fix it! :eek:
 

zorry

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Is becoming a Canadian Citizen an option..?

I can't...don't like Tim Hortons.

It was good enough for guys in the 60's...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Is becoming a Canadian Citizen an option..?

I can't...don't like Tim Hortons.

It was good enough for guys in the 60's...

Nope, live FREE or die. The guys, wimps, who ran up there in the '60's, were cowards. The useless dope smoking pieces of dog snot that they were. Real men take a stand, they don't run. Obama would have joined them, the sniveling coward he is.

They can all eat stuff and puke. As all who asked for the hell we have here today. All Obama bums can just "Kiss my grits"!!!

If you can't stand on your own two feet, well, end it. We don't need cowards, wimps and duds here.

Grow up, become responsible adults, accept your lot in life and quit begging. I can no longer afford to carry your sorry butt.
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Yet ANOTHER cute little tidbit on the health care plans. FIRST you have to pay the premiums, THEN the deductible, THEN you see benefit from the policy. SO using exact numbers from a real plan: My Priority HSA Bronze 6000

Premium: 660.92 per month that is $7931.04 per year

Deductible: $6000 per year.

MINIMUM out of pocket BEFORE the plan pays is $13'931.04

the following is exact wording:

"Here's an example of how it works: If your deductible is $6000, your health insurance won't pay anything until you've paid $6000 for covered health care services. The deductible may not apply to all services"

13'931.04, for ONE person, for ONE year and it is the LOWEST cost bronze plan this company has. Unbelievable.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
All this angst - you could just do what I do: don't buy health insurance. Pay cash for whatever medical care you require, and if there's a fine for not having insurance, pay that too.
That will let the government know how you feel about Obamacare.

PS Most Americans were not 'against' Obamacare, they were in favor of doing something about the ludicrous costs of health care. Enriching the insurance industry wasn't what we had in mind, but it looks like that's what we got.
 

Monty

Expert Expediter
Offline
I'm sure there is $$ in there budget to take care of themselves...the biggest problem with healthcare cost I feel is GREED..extremely overpriced services and medications etc
The reason, imho, the costs were so high was not greed. It was to cover those who worked the system, such as emergency rooms, and never paid their bill.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
All this angst - you could just do what I do: don't buy health insurance. Pay cash for whatever medical care you require, and if there's a fine for not having insurance, pay that too.
That will let the government know how you feel about Obamacare.

PS Most Americans were not 'against' Obamacare, they were in favor of doing something about the ludicrous costs of health care. Enriching the insurance industry wasn't what we had in mind, but it looks like that's what we got.
Last year my wife had surgery. It is my job to insure that there is money there for that. Pay a FINE? To not be allowed to have coverage that I have now? Does the REALLY make sense? It is irresponsible to not provide for the needs of one's family.

Try this again and make sense of it. Sally and Sam can afford insurance. Suzie and Gorge cannot. The government solution is to make is so that not ONLY Sally and Sam cannot afford insurance, but now Suzie and Gorge can't. THEN they THREATEN Sally and Sam with fines, liens against their home, etc etc, to make it more fair for everyone.

Think it out. NO ONE is getting good insurance any longer. Not even the "poor" who this is CLAIMING to help. IT'S A SCAM! Just like the Ponzi Scheme known as Social Security is.

Did something need done? Yep. Eliminate that causes of high health care costs, starting with government interference in the market. EVERYTHING the federal government gets involved with ends up costing more.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Offline
PS Most Americans were not 'against' Obamacare, they were in favor of doing something about the ludicrous costs of health care. Enriching the insurance industry wasn't what we had in mind, but it looks like that's what we got.
Yes, most people are against Obamacare and the polls have reflected that. The costs of healthcare could be controlled by less people having insurance so that they suddenly care about paying $12 for an Advil.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Yes, most people are against Obamacare and the polls have reflected that. The costs of healthcare could be controlled by less people having insurance so that they suddenly care about paying $12 for an Advil.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
That would be the best solution, outlaw health insurance. Get rid of punitive regulations.

The current situation is punitive to everyone. It punishes responsible action and rewards irresponsibility. It does NOT provide useful coverage for anyone and takes away useful coverage that many did have, again, through the use of punitive regulation.
 

golfournut

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Great article in USA Today today. Titled " big insures avoid many state exchanges".

The jist of the article is 2 fold.
Competition has diminished across the board and the geographic focus is very narrow.

For example:
You live in state ABC that has 4 insures on the exchange. You live in county XYZ that only 1 of those insures participate. Therefore they can write their own ticket as to premium costs.

This has really turned into such a fiasco. But your highness and his court continue to defend it by saying stupid things like "most will enjoy lower premiums". BS.

The Republicans took a big hit in recent weeks. Hopefully in upcoming weeks the press will unveil this scam for what it is and the 53% will have had enough to do something about it like vote to start with.

It amazes me that after Romney's tape got aired about the 47% of takers, the other 53% didn't get pizzed off enough to get out and vote. When the majority of the votes cast are from the takers because they don't want to loose their free ride, who's to blame now? I guess they had more time on their hands to get out and vote!



Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
You are currently seeing only the bargain rates at this point. What people are currently seeing is considerably higher than previously thought. People are just now starting to see that reality.
What did Obama say last week? "We need to get immigration back on track".
They still have the goal to get 11 million illegals on the exchanges. They said no, but they are setting the ground work for yes. Need the votes in 16.
Now....only two percent of the eleven million have employer coverage.
Guess who is going to be paying for the others?
 
Last edited:

golfournut

Veteran Expediter
Offline
At some point the 47% will get over 50%. Then what? It certainly isn't sustainable.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
 

golfournut

Veteran Expediter
Offline
The government is also saying it's going to take at least 6 months to get the technology squared away. And that's without updating 10 year old technology.

The IRS has already lost $61 million, lost as in don't know where it's at, of the $488 million given to them to hire 1205 people and lease buildings to administrator this program.

Seems to me the costs of implementation, over seeing and maintaining out weigh the benefit. But then again, our government quit being prudent long ago.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
The government is also saying it's going to take at least 6 months to get the technology squared away. And that's without updating 10 year old technology.

The IRS has already lost $61 million, lost as in don't know where it's at, of the $488 million given to them to hire 1205 people and lease buildings to administrator this program.

Seems to me the costs of implementation, over seeing and maintaining out weigh the benefit. But then again, our government quit being prudent long ago.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
They say "they lost 61 million". I think they know where it really is but don't want to say.
They have overspent everywhere and will have to continue to do so for the plan to continue.
Just heard today that if they can't get their web site up and running, they will have to expand call centers and do it that way.
As of no surprise......they already starting hiring more people for call centers. That would be Billions wasted if they scrap the web site.
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
You are currently seeing only the bargain rates at this point. What people are currently seeing is considerably higher than previously thought. People are just now starting to see that reality.
What did Obama say last week? "We need to get immigration back on track".
They still have the goal to get 11 million illegals on the exchanges. They said no, but they are setting the ground work for yes. Need the votes in 16.
Now....only two percent of the eleven million have employer coverage.
Guess who is going to be paying for the others?
One plan we looked at was $404 per month THIS year, next year it is $808.

I am STILL waiting for ANYONE to explain how taking away affordable plans and replacing them with UN-AFFORDABLE plans benefits anyone?
 

golfournut

Veteran Expediter
Offline
LOS, there is no explanation other than this. 1/3 of the insurance companies that were writing individual insurance prior to Oct 1 elected to not participate in the exchanges due state regulation environments, cost analysis by geographic region and profit potential. After all, as far as business is concerned they are still capitalistic, but operating in a socialist environment.
They have chosen to take a wait and see attitude.

Your individual case may be a result of location or lack of competition or both. For example; living in two different counties within the same state can have different results in premium options, plans available, deductibles and provider options or all of these. Which only makes it less affordable.

This bill was not made for you or me. It was made for those already on the take. The 47%. We, being the 53%, get to pay for the 47%. So suck it buttercup, that's the way it is until such time as this thing gets reversed if ever.

The old way of underwriting, by class, has now gone to this way of underwriting because of regulation to remain profitable.

Truckers get regulated, but have little options. Either do it or find something else to do.

Insurance companies can pick and chose where, what or how they are going to do business under the regulations imposed on them. As with you or me, it's about the bottom line. They currently just have more options available to them.

Now one way to fix that problem, on a state level, is the state says to the insuarance company if you want to do business in our state, you have offer all your lines of product.

Texas did that in the 80s with property and casualty. Farmers and State Farm didn't want to underwrite homeowners or participate in the high risk insurance pool. The country ot Texas said fine. Get out altogether. Either write it all or write none. They changed their tune real fast.

A lot of states now write the polices for the consumers that the insurance companies must use to do business in that state. So the only difference between companies is price and service in reguards to P&C. Carry that over to the health line and I think you could see a big change just with that. Wouldn't need Obama care except for the susidies for the 47%.
Product lines would be the same, competion would be increased thereby driving down premiums. Etna, Blue Cross or United would then have to chose which states they want to operate in or not instead of the current system which allows them to offer employer benefits but not individual if they chose thereby limiting their bottomline.
If anyone of those would lose a customer like IBM, GE, Wholefoods or any company with 5000 plus employees because they can't write in the home state of domicile, they wouldn't be in business very long.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
 

golfournut

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Most states have 3 basics licence categories for insurance companies and the general consumer.
Property and Casualty, homeowners, rental and auto insurance fall under this.

Life, life insurance and certain annuities fall under here.

Health, health insurance, workmans comp fall under here whether for individual or company.

When it comes to the broader range of products for business, they often require specialty licenses or amendments to one of the above.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
"This bill was not made for you or me. It was made for those already on the take. The 47%. We, being the 53%, get to pay for the 47%. So suck it buttercup, that's the way it is until such time as this thing gets reversed if ever."


Well, as it stands now, we cannot afford ANY of the programs out there, NOT ONE. Plans with similar premiums, cover nothing. Plans that are similar in coverage, are a MINIMUM of 131% HIGHER premiums that what we have.

We are out of options. This "better than nothing bill" has broke us. We are at a loss.

I GUESS we can just pay as we go and then, IF something BAD happens, not bother to pay the bills and become part of the problem. Just pay the $95 and become an Obama Bum like the rest who caused this problem. Just become irresponsible like the rest of the sheeple. Makes me sick, sick, tired and fed up with the entire mess. You work hard all your life, be responsible and all it gets you is .........................................
:mad:

I still see no justification for a law that eliminates affordable coverage and MANDATES un-affordable coverage at extremely inflated rates, all for the good of the country. Does this make sense?
 

golfournut

Veteran Expediter
Offline
"*The preamble to the U.S. Constitution lists the five functions of government as (1) To establish justice, which is to say that government is to punish evildoers and protect those who do right (2) To insure domestic tranquility, which is to say as long as the laws and procedures of the U.S. are followed we maintain our right to free speech and to rally together for a cause.** (3) To provide for the common defense – Obviously this is done by the provision of an army and navy for protection from external threats. (4) To promote the general welfare; the key word here is promote and not provide, for it is not proper for government to provide money and aid to special interest groups. Government's function is to promote through law and policy an economic atmosphere that allows all people to prosper. (5) To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity – #5 summarizes the broad purpose of both government and citizenship under our system. Are the "blessings of liberty" in your neighborhood or community secure for both you and your "posterity"--your children?*** One could argue today that our local, state and federal debt is so great that our government is failing miserably to secure the blessings of liberty, if not for ourselves, surely for our children. Also, blessings are a gift of one’s Creator, not a privilege granted by government. These blessings include life, liberty, and property. Our Founding Fathers saw that government cannot provide these, only secure them. Perhaps today's government leaders and some citizens have forgotten this difference and why our governments are, economically speaking, in dire straits."

I found this on the web. Trying to figure out where all the entitlement programs and mandated programs fit in this. Seems they are providing not promoting. Guess that's what gets the votes!

Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app
 
Top