I meant buying over-priced ObamaUnCare will look pretty silly. Just pay the puny PenalTax(tm) instead and pay cash, save money, and get lots better service for ordinary care.
If it looks silly and irrelevant they'll repeal it. Or subsidize it ;).
The only catch is that Ocarp outlawed major medical insurance--you can't buy a policy (I think, not positive) without all the O-baggage. Thanks to Ocarp what should be cheap, affordable major medical security is no longer cheap or affordable.
There are some work-arounds for that, for example policies lasting
Rand Paul actually did some volunteer works as an opthalmologist. I think t hat quite out of character for republicans but he is not in the old boy clu b. Maybe he will be. I used to support him but he has made some unsavory fr iends and might be an Israel firster like most republicans now, who want to attack Iran for Israel because they cannot handle the job themself. Oh, an ti-Semitic slur ? NOPE. Just look at AIPAC's website. They solicit donation s, citing THAT as a cause. And now, Rand Paul wants to snub Palestine.
However, that does not take away from the fact that he has a pretty honorab le past. Not that he should be President. Well maybe. Get him to appoint hi s Father as head of the fed. Then you would see some heads roll, but unfort unately the old Man should retire, and in fact did or announced he was goin g to.
sts between $4000 and $13000. You don't break even on your premium + deduct ible + percentage until about $12000.
d of those the 5150 deductible, 25% is usually the lowest. Since my health care costs will usually be zero that's probably my best choice.
s. So if you need a medical procedure, the doctor/hospital sends you some b ills, the insurance company says we only pay so much for this procedure, an d you're stuck with the difference. This stuff isn't listed anywhere.
re!
ing friends of yours, who couldn't get their own models to work and decided that every body else in the climate modelling business had to be equally i ncompetent and were thus lying about their more successful models?
odels
eral
It's your memory that needs work. What you posted was in terms of a within- the-lab dispute. You didn't post any references to the published literature then, and you haven't now, probably because the whole dispute was a storm in a tea-cup, rather than evidence of any large-scale fraud in the climate prediction business.
The published literature is full of papers that aren't quite right for a wh ole variety of reason - working out how they fall short of perfection and f ixing the faults are what the scientific method is all about.
The literature survey in my Ph.D. thesis covered about fifty published pape rs, many of which were obviously inadequate when compared with more recent stuff, and the two that directly preceded my work - published in 1918 and 1
931 respectively - had fairly obvious defects. The problem with the 1931 wo rk might not have been obvious to the experimenter at the time, but in 1934 Yost et al published some really good data on the thermodynamics of the r eaction, which made it obvious that the 1931 guy hadn't mixed his reagents as completely as he should have done.
e
No. She thinks she didn't okay a non-networked anesthestist, but actually d idn't check everything she signed, and may be too embarrassed to admit it.
I couldn't care less how the US hospital system managed to rip her off, but I doubt if the particular defects of Obamacare had much to do with that pa rticular rip-off.
You have an unsavoury tendency to blame systems you find politically unattr active for faults that don't anything to do with the features that you don' t like.
althcare economics over the weekend that's a must-read for anyone about to undergo a major medical procedure.
magically show up on a hospital bill. She focused on one particularly nasty practice, called "drive-by doctoring," in which physicians call in colleag ues not in a patient's network to consult or assist on a procedure.
Drive-by doctoring has been a feature of unscrupulous medical practice for a very long time. Dishonest doctors have long been in the habit of "consult ing" their friends, and billing the patient for the consultation in the exp ectation that they'll get "consulted" by the same friends and be handsomely paid for a few minutes conversation.
Blaming it on Obamacare is exactly the kind rhetorical trick that you pract ice more or less non-stop. If it isn't the lie direct, it comes very close to it. Your climate science story looks very like more of the same, which i s why I brought it up.
costs between $4000 and $13000. You don't break even on your premium + dedu ctible + percentage until about $12000.
and of those the 5150 deductible, 25% is usually the lowest. Since my healt h care costs will usually be zero that's probably my best choice.
sts. So if you need a medical procedure, the doctor/hospital sends you some bills, the insurance company says we only pay so much for this procedure, and you're stuck with the difference. This stuff isn't listed anywhere.
nd
e
e
r
re
k.
care!
lling friends of yours, who couldn't get their own models to work and decid ed that every body else in the climate modelling business had to be equally incompetent and were thus lying about their more successful models?
models
everal
n-the-lab dispute. You didn't post any references to the published literatu re then, and you haven't now, probably because the whole dispute was a stor m in a tea-cup, rather than evidence of any large-scale fraud in the climat e prediction business.
whole variety of reason - working out how they fall short of perfection and fixing the faults are what the scientific method is all about.
pers, many of which were obviously inadequate when compared with more recen t stuff, and the two that directly preceded my work - published in 1918 and 1931 respectively - had fairly obvious defects. The problem with the 1931 work might not have been obvious to the experimenter at the time, but in 19
34 Yost et al published some really good data on the thermodynamics of the reaction, which made it obvious that the 1931 guy hadn't mixed his reagent s as completely as he should have done.
uge
didn't check everything she signed, and may be too embarrassed to admit it .
ut I doubt if the particular defects of Obamacare had much to do with that particular rip-off.
tractive for faults that don't anything to do with the features that you do n't like.
healthcare economics over the weekend that's a must-read for anyone about t o undergo a major medical procedure.
n magically show up on a hospital bill. She focused on one particularly nas ty practice, called "drive-by doctoring," in which physicians call in colle agues not in a patient's network to consult or assist on a procedure.
r a very long time. Dishonest doctors have long been in the habit of "consu lting" their friends, and billing the patient for the consultation in the e xpectation that they'll get "consulted" by the same friends and be handsome ly paid for a few minutes conversation.
ctice more or less non-stop. If it isn't the lie direct, it comes very clos e to it. Your climate science story looks very like more of the same, which is why I brought it up.
With you it's always about people, never facts.
Obamacare is the reason millions who could previously go anywhere and be seen by anyone now fall into this trap of "networks" and "narrow networks." Google it. So it's DIRECTLY Obamacare's fault.
Meanwhile, I'll leave you to fabricate some new old conspiracy theories.
It's a fraction of paying $20k (or more) for useless Ocr@p with huge deductible. The slave tax(tm) is halved on minor children.
Christian health care ministries seem quite good.
Only the ones extant at the time of the Intolerable Act's imposition are authorized. (I think there are three.)
There are also exemptions for "a member of a recognized religious sect," as defined by the (non-existent) section 1402(g)(1), so if Obama approves of your religion and your beliefs, you're exempt from the "Individual Responsibility Payment," a.k.a. "slavery tax." (*)
(I think Quaker Amish Muslims qualify if they file affidavits from St. Peter and Muhammed.)
(*)(Section 10106b of the Unaffordable Act, now codified as the Most Glorious section 5000A(d)(2)(A) of the Incredibly Just and Fair Internal Revenue Code of the Ignited States.)
Socialism gives you other people's, free. Very nice but I already make my own, thank you.
e costs between $4000 and $13000. You don't break even on your premium + de ductible + percentage until about $12000.
e and of those the 5150 deductible, 25% is usually the lowest. Since my hea lth care costs will usually be zero that's probably my best choice.
costs. So if you need a medical procedure, the doctor/hospital sends you so me bills, the insurance company says we only pay so much for this procedure , and you're stuck with the difference. This stuff isn't listed anywhere.
and
the
.
've
der
e
at
ur
n,
he
were
ork.
macare!
delling friends of yours, who couldn't get their own models to work and dec ided that every body else in the climate modelling business had to be equal ly incompetent and were thus lying about their more successful models?
he models
several
hin-the-lab dispute. You didn't post any references to the published litera ture then, and you haven't now, probably because the whole dispute was a st orm in a tea-cup, rather than evidence of any large-scale fraud in the clim ate prediction business.
a whole variety of reason - working out how they fall short of perfection a nd fixing the faults are what the scientific method is all about.
papers, many of which were obviously inadequate when compared with more rec ent stuff, and the two that directly preceded my work - published in 1918 a nd 1931 respectively - had fairly obvious defects. The problem with the 193
1 work might not have been obvious to the experimenter at the time, but in
1934 Yost et al published some really good data on the thermodynamics of t he reaction, which made it obvious that the 1931 guy hadn't mixed his reage nts as completely as he should have done.
huge
ly didn't check everything she signed, and may be too embarrassed to admit it.
but I doubt if the particular defects of Obamacare had much to do with tha t particular rip-off.
attractive for faults that don't anything to do with the features that you don't like.
n healthcare economics over the weekend that's a must-read for anyone about to undergo a major medical procedure.
can magically show up on a hospital bill. She focused on one particularly n asty practice, called "drive-by doctoring," in which physicians call in col leagues not in a patient's network to consult or assist on a procedure.
for a very long time. Dishonest doctors have long been in the habit of "con sulting" their friends, and billing the patient for the consultation in the expectation that they'll get "consulted" by the same friends and be handso mely paid for a few minutes conversation.
ractice more or less non-stop. If it isn't the lie direct, it comes very cl ose to it. Your climate science story looks very like more of the same, whi ch is why I brought it up.
Facts are always about people.
."
Obamacare can't be the first form of medical insurance that tied the insure d to particular doctors and particular hospitals. Kaiser predates Obama, an d that's a supplier-specific package.
From what little I know of Kaiser, they aren't the kind of organisation tha t would go in for the extra-consultation scam, but their patients couldn't "go anywhere".
Falling for conspiracy theories is not a contagious disoreder. And your fav ourite conspiracy theory - about anthropogenic global warming being a clima tologist conspiracy to justify more and bigger research grants - makes you our resident conspiracy theoretician, with extra bonus points for not knowi ng what you are talking about.
Yep, I was paying $5,256 for 4 people in 2012 for what many thought was catastrophic insurance, $10,000 deductible. Today an O'care policy for 3 people is $17,112 with a $13,700 family deductible.
I'm still keeping my partial free market plan at $8,448 with $10,000 deductible for 3 people.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.