|
Post by SimSim on Apr 24, 2010 7:03:34 GMT -5
You also can't get denied due to pre-existing conditions when you apply for the insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Apr 24, 2010 7:33:56 GMT -5
That's good. Unfortunately, my stepfather probably makes more than 50k a year (I never asked), but is the sole breadwinner in our 3-person family. I hope we don't end up having it too hard. I wonder how much it's going to cost. At the moment he pays something like 300 dollars every three months for what amounts to little more than car accident insurance-- it doesn't cover my pre-existing epileptic disorder. The fact that such a thing is going to finally be remedied makes me very happy!
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 24, 2010 8:56:48 GMT -5
if I remember right (you should really ask Nick, he's got this memorized) for a joint family the income bar is a lot higher, the 50k was just for individuals
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Apr 24, 2010 9:29:44 GMT -5
if I remember right (you should really ask Nick, he's got this memorized) for a joint family the income bar is a lot higher, the 50k was just for individuals Wow! But... even if I'm technically not a dependent? (I'll be 25 in September.)
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 24, 2010 9:37:35 GMT -5
It's 400% of the poverty line that gets subsidies. If you're 130% of the poverty line, you get medicaid. The line can be found here.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Apr 24, 2010 10:02:34 GMT -5
Also worth mentioning that it'll be a few years before insurance becomes mandatory. I think it's 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Apr 24, 2010 12:45:06 GMT -5
Also worth mentioning that it'll be a few years before insurance becomes mandatory. I think it's 2013. Oh crap no. If Obama isn't voted for a second term, then that means the next president might overturn it. Ack!
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 24, 2010 13:00:54 GMT -5
Also worth mentioning that it'll be a few years before insurance becomes mandatory. I think it's 2013. Oh crap no. If Obama isn't voted for a second term, then that means the next president might overturn it. Ack! How? It's already passed, it just has the timetable passed as well. It doesn't have to be resigned in 2013, it's already done.
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Apr 24, 2010 13:25:37 GMT -5
...Oh. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Apr 24, 2010 13:27:05 GMT -5
Yeah, we'd need a majority GOP senate and house as well before healthcare reforms can be overturned. By the time that happens again, people will have taken the reforms for granted already. It will be impossible to repeal.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 24, 2010 16:27:56 GMT -5
I think they take effect in 2012 anyway, not 2013.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Apr 24, 2010 16:43:19 GMT -5
I think they take effect in 2012 anyway, not 2013. As I said, I could be wrong about the year. I went looking, but couldn't find it. Although I did find out that starting 6 months after the enactment of the bill, children can be covered under their parent's insurance until age 26.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 24, 2010 17:02:55 GMT -5
Eight years of Neo-con policies and legislation can't just be swept away while proclaiming damn the consequences. The number of detainees at Gitmo has be severely reduced. The ones that are left are hard cases. We may not have enough evidence, at least that would stand in court, to prosecute these people, but just letting them go is also a bad idea. What do you do? Look at the trouble with Khalid Sheik Mohammed and trying to prosecute him in civil courts. Sorting out this whole mess is going to take time and will not be easy. The arbitrary imprisonment policies are not a 'mess'. They are a crime against humanity, (section e, Article 7, Rome Statute), unconstitutional (Boumedine et al) and completely pointless for all bar political reasons. What can you do? Well, what do you do when you arrest a guy you 'know' to be a serial killer or a child molestor, but can't prove it? What do you do if you just lose in court? You release them. Immediately. Otherwise, do not pretend to have a rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 24, 2010 17:32:27 GMT -5
Eight years of Neo-con policies and legislation can't just be swept away while proclaiming damn the consequences. The number of detainees at Gitmo has be severely reduced. The ones that are left are hard cases. We may not have enough evidence, at least that would stand in court, to prosecute these people, but just letting them go is also a bad idea. What do you do? Look at the trouble with Khalid Sheik Mohammed and trying to prosecute him in civil courts. Sorting out this whole mess is going to take time and will not be easy. The arbitrary imprisonment policies are not a 'mess'. They are a crime against humanity, (section e, Article 7, Rome Statute), unconstitutional (Boumedine et al) and completely pointless for all bar political reasons. What can you do? Well, what do you do when you arrest a guy you 'know' to be a serial killer or a child molestor, but can't prove it? What do you do if you just lose in court? You release them. Immediately. Otherwise, do not pretend to have a rule of law. We can just let them go in Afghanistan or Iraq. Hand them an AK-47, stick a full magazine in their pocket, and push them out the front gate of the army base. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 24, 2010 17:46:51 GMT -5
The arbitrary imprisonment policies are not a 'mess'. They are a crime against humanity, (section e, Article 7, Rome Statute), unconstitutional (Boumedine et al) and completely pointless for all bar political reasons. What can you do? Well, what do you do when you arrest a guy you 'know' to be a serial killer or a child molestor, but can't prove it? What do you do if you just lose in court? You release them. Immediately. Otherwise, do not pretend to have a rule of law. We can just let them go in Afghanistan or Iraq. Hand them an AK-47, stick a full magazine in their pocket, and push them out the front gate of the army base. ;D I've found it's best to kinda skim Fred's posts and not respond, he's like the liberal version of Skyfire
|
|