Aint No Right

our california run obamacare mailed me nine of the exact same letter today (in separate envelopes). i received three yesterday (not pictured because i threw them away). the postage for each letter was 40 cents, plus the envelope, paper, ink and labor to send it let's say total cost 50 cents a letter. if they fucked up and did this to every person in california (3.3 million) that signed up it would waste:

3,300,000 x 11 (so far) x 50 cents = 18.15 million dollars.

i wonder how many more i will get?? i wonder if everyone got these?

You can view CC's budget here: http://hbex.coveredca.com/financial-rep ... Budget.pdf

I don't know what those letters would fall under, but if they did spend $18 million on this round, that's 4% of their recommended budget for the year... which doesn't sound too crazy I guess, given that it's a 4 year old program with huge enrollment numbers still coming in. They're expecting those costs to drop dramatically very quickly, once they get a critical mass of people to finally have insurance. I'd guess they probably also expect to fix a lot of these logistical fuckups over time as well...

i actually just enrolled for healthcare today. im working part time right now, and my work keeps me at 18 hours so they dont have to give me benefits (and im on NYS payroll )

i make so little my healthcare will be free. god bless america

farrellgirl99 wrote:i actually just enrolled for healthcare today. im working part time right now, and my work keeps me at 18 hours so they dont have to give me benefits (and im on NYS payroll )

i make so little my healthcare will be free. god bless america

No it's not. I guess no need to mention Jonathan Gruber.

LJF wrote:

farrellgirl99 wrote:i actually just enrolled for healthcare today. im working part time right now, and my work keeps me at 18 hours so they dont have to give me benefits (and im on NYS payroll )

i make so little my healthcare will be free. god bless america

No it's not. I guess no need to mention Jonathan Gruber.

If my healthcare wasn't subsidized, I would be stuck with a plan that cost 45% of my monthly salary. Not sustainable. So I'm happy for any assistance I can get, even if you're unhappy your taxes are going towards it. Atleast, I assume that was what your post was about.

farrellgirl99 wrote:

LJF wrote:

farrellgirl99 wrote:i actually just enrolled for healthcare today. im working part time right now, and my work keeps me at 18 hours so they dont have to give me benefits (and im on NYS payroll )

i make so little my healthcare will be free. god bless america

No it's not. I guess no need to mention Jonathan Gruber.

If my healthcare wasn't subsidized, I would be stuck with a plan that cost 45% of my monthly salary. Not sustainable. So I'm happy for any assistance I can get, even if you're unhappy your taxes are going towards it. Atleast, I assume that was what your post was about.

Just pointing out that it's not for free. One of my concerns is when people start thinking it's for free, because it certainly isn't. Also you will have a deductible.

Did you qualify for Medicaid? Looks like it's "free" for some low-income people: https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/

Of course "free" is context-sensitive...

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Did you qualify for Medicaid? Looks like it's "free" for some low-income people: https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/

Of course "free" is context-sensitive...

Yup that's what ended up happening. Until I find a full time job with benefits, no shame in the game for me.

farrellgirl99 wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Did you qualify for Medicaid? Looks like it's "free" for some low-income people: https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/

Of course "free" is context-sensitive...

Yup that's what ended up happening. Until I find a full time job with benefits, no shame in the game for me.

That makes LJF's comment even weirder. Does he really think you didn't understand that taxes fund social welfare programs? (Hey, um... is that mansplaining? )

I mean: no one gets confused by the fact that non-toll highways ("freeways"?) are "free" in the sense of being a thing you can use without having to pay a person immediately or specifically...

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

farrellgirl99 wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Did you qualify for Medicaid? Looks like it's "free" for some low-income people: https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/

Of course "free" is context-sensitive...

Yup that's what ended up happening. Until I find a full time job with benefits, no shame in the game for me.

That makes LJF's comment even weirder. Does he really think you didn't understand that taxes fund social welfare programs? (Hey, um... is that mansplaining? )

I mean: no one gets confused by the fact that non-toll highways ("freeways"?) are "free" in the sense of being a thing you can use without having to pay a person immediately or specifically...

"My healthcare wil be free"', those were her exact words. It bothers me, when people say that. If that's weird to you well not sure what to tell you.

LJF wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

farrellgirl99 wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Did you qualify for Medicaid? Looks like it's "free" for some low-income people: https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/

Of course "free" is context-sensitive...

Yup that's what ended up happening. Until I find a full time job with benefits, no shame in the game for me.

That makes LJF's comment even weirder. Does he really think you didn't understand that taxes fund social welfare programs? (Hey, um... is that mansplaining? )

I mean: no one gets confused by the fact that non-toll highways ("freeways"?) are "free" in the sense of being a thing you can use without having to pay a person immediately or specifically...

"My healthcare wil be free"', those were her exact words. It bothers me, when people say that. If that's weird to you well not sure what to tell you.

...

In all states, Medicaid provides free or low-cost care for some low-income people, families and children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

I don't know if you're just intentionally being obtuse because you're ideologically bound to focus only on the fact that governance uses taxes to pay for what it does, or if you're actually incapable of understanding how words work...

I'll just save everyone time and energy and admit it: I'm a welfare queen.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

LJF wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

farrellgirl99 wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Did you qualify for Medicaid? Looks like it's "free" for some low-income people: https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/

Of course "free" is context-sensitive...

Yup that's what ended up happening. Until I find a full time job with benefits, no shame in the game for me.

That makes LJF's comment even weirder. Does he really think you didn't understand that taxes fund social welfare programs? (Hey, um... is that mansplaining? )

I mean: no one gets confused by the fact that non-toll highways ("freeways"?) are "free" in the sense of being a thing you can use without having to pay a person immediately or specifically...

"My healthcare wil be free"', those were her exact words. It bothers me, when people say that. If that's weird to you well not sure what to tell you.

...

In all states, Medicaid provides free or low-cost care for some low-income people, families and children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

I don't know if you're just intentionally being obtuse because you're ideologically bound to focus only on the fact that governance uses taxes to pay for what it does, or if you're actually incapable of understanding how words work...

Sorry you can't understand that I find it annoying or frustrating when people says something like healthcare is "free" when it isn't. It's just one of those things that gets me. So please carry on with your deep analysis.

I just love it when people who pay taxes on anything think that because some people get some sort of support from the government for any reason it's personal, like it's literally coming out of their pocket...if I hear one more fifth grader tell me that his school is free, I think I'm gonna lose it...

What's ironic, is that this preoccupation with the economic and literal sense of "free" is associate with an ideology that dramatically limits the scope of freedom in general (see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liber ... -negative/ ) even more than the standard liberal conception already does. Worse, it's an ideology whose proponents seem blissfully unaware that its logical upshot is anarcho-fascism.

farrellgirl99 wrote:I'll just save everyone time and energy and admit it: I'm a welfare queen.

YOU GO GURL!!

LJF wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

LJF wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

farrellgirl99 wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:Did you qualify for Medicaid? Looks like it's "free" for some low-income people: https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/

Of course "free" is context-sensitive...

Yup that's what ended up happening. Until I find a full time job with benefits, no shame in the game for me.

That makes LJF's comment even weirder. Does he really think you didn't understand that taxes fund social welfare programs? (Hey, um... is that mansplaining? )

I mean: no one gets confused by the fact that non-toll highways ("freeways"?) are "free" in the sense of being a thing you can use without having to pay a person immediately or specifically...

"My healthcare wil be free"', those were her exact words. It bothers me, when people say that. If that's weird to you well not sure what to tell you.

...

In all states, Medicaid provides free or low-cost care for some low-income people, families and children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

I don't know if you're just intentionally being obtuse because you're ideologically bound to focus only on the fact that governance uses taxes to pay for what it does, or if you're actually incapable of understanding how words work...

Sorry you can't understand that I find it annoying or frustrating when people says something like healthcare is "free" when it isn't. It's just one of those things that gets me. So please carry on with your deep analysis.

Actually, if SHE is working P/T, SHE is paying taxes. Therefore SHE is paying her own insurance.

But next time you drive on the Southern State Parkway or the LIE, you can thank me for your free drive. You didn't pay a toll and my taxes go for the up keep.

Actually, if SHE is working P/T, SHE is paying taxes. Therefore SHE is paying her own insurance.

Isn't there a "minimum personal exemption" for income taxes? I know there is in Canada, so that you get back all the taxes paid on the first $10-11,000 of income or so (this is for everyone, as I understand it...). And even if she does pay taxes, that shouldn't really matter, since the idea behind paying taxes isn't "to pay for the things you use", it's "to fund the government so that a commonwealth can function", whatever that means (and it means different things to different people at different times).

Actually, if SHE is working P/T, SHE is paying taxes. Therefore SHE is paying her own insurance.

But next time you drive on the Southern State Parkway or the LIE, you can thank me for your free drive. You didn't pay a toll and my taxes go for the up keep.[/quote]




Ok thanks you just proved my point, it isn't for free. So how is what you said any different from what I said? No one is jumping all over you. Everyone jumped on it and took it whatever way they wanted which is fine. If you read what I wrote it simply says it isn't for free. I didn't say I'm paying for it, or you're paying for it, or anyone in particular just it isn't free.


I don't drive or at least haven't yet driven on the southern state parkway or the LIE, but when I do I will send you a personal thank you. Would you like that in a note, e-mail, or PM. My hand writing is terrible so if you want it hand written sorry in advance it will be difficult to read.

LJF, do you think this case is fair: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Te ... 62931.html ?

Adurentibus Spina wrote:LJF, do you think this case is fair: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Te ... 62931.html ?

Taken at face value, I'd like to think they would not fire the guy. I don't know what their policies are, but again I'd like to think that someone in that position isn't treated that way. I think treating employees the right way and taking care of them to the best of the companies ability is good for everyone. You get loyal employees that what to work for you, do a good job and have a good attitude. The company needs to be able to make money, if not it's bad for everyone.

They will need to hire someone else or increase the shifts for other delivery people, but when the guy is recovered I'd like to think his job is still there. Never been a business owner, maybe Juana can give a better answer.

Your response is interesting... you'd like to think a bunch of good stuff... well, so would we all. But why should basic human decency be left to luck? Especially in cases where real harm can be done?

Temp. agencies exist. As does asking current workers to all pitch in to cover for the guy's shifts. But if a business owner doesn't want to do that, they don't have to, unless there are labour laws or unions involved. And shouldn't there be?

Adurentibus Spina wrote:And shouldn't there be?

Fuck the poor and uneducated...if you can't take care of yourself, then ya need to work harder...

Yeah because reasonable regulation means rampant unemployment!

I'd laugh, but it's fucking terrible that people actually think this.