Junction

it doesn't perpetuate laziness. parents might, but this doesn't.

there was a time right after the "internet bubble" burst where I had dropped out of college two years in (personal/family, financial, and medical reasons - an avalanche that would be difficult to fully qualify or address in your "certain requirements"). as i addressed those issues over the next few years, i reached the age where I could no longer stay on my parents' insurance. have you ever tried to obtain your own benefits? the plans I had access to on the "open market" were many times more expensive than the additional premiums I had been paying my parents to share theirs (obviously the employer subsidy drove much of that, but so did being a part of a "family" coverage rate). on top of the tremendous premiums, the coverage was absolute crap compared to what I had previously - paying far more for much less, and this was the result of a legitimate effort to scour options and find the best plan. that is absurd. 5 years after leaving a different school, i "transferred" in to A&M, and finished my EE undergrad in 3 and masters in an additional 1.5 yrs. I've been employed continuously since graduation but consider myself fortunate to have been so in this climate.

Throughout my time at A&M, I purchased the TAMU-system-sanctioned independent medical insurance plans (at first the undergrad, and then the graduate plans - yes they were different). *Even* with what seemed like a much "safer" plan than I had scavenged for on the open market previously, I was rudely reminded of just how worthless some of these fringe (even those uniquely marketed by the university) plans are. I mentioned in a doctor's office that I'd broken my ankle during a club men's soccer game against baylor, and because this comment was transmitted into my paperwork, the TAMU-sanctioned medical plan denied my coverage of the incident. Why? Because there was the tiniest of tiny exclusions in the fine print in a subsection of an addendum to the second revision of the benefit plan (or something like that) that, as the 13th in a list of relatively obscure and unlikely "exclusions to the policy", listed "university-sanctioned organized recreational sports" (the specific verbiage escapes me, but whatever). I guess the plan creators assumed that if this activity would be covered under the University's general policies (it wasn't). So if I had been playing intramural water polo, or coed soccer (key word: "intramural" vs "rec sports / club"), and sustained the same injury - I'd have been covered. But in this case, I wasn't. So the one time I really needed the policy recommended and promoted by the University for independent students, it left me out to dry.

I ended up fighting through this (come on - this is RIDICULOUS!?) with the TAMU administration and their promotion of an insufficient student plan, and someone pretty high up there with a heart ultimately convinced the plan to cover my expenses (almost a year down the road). The next year, the plan offered the was the same, but there was a very clearly emphasized additional rider policy (for about 10-15% of the premium) that expanded coverage to all club sports.

My experience with independent health coverage is a walk in the park compared to many, many others. But it was enough to get a sense of just how broken the system was (hell - it doesn't seem "fixed" from this, the very good employee-subsidized plan side of life, either). I have NO IDEA if "Obamacare" is going to help things. But we were a long way off from where we needed to be, and the extension to 26 yrs old for child dependent coverage seems like an obvious improvement to me, by a long shot. No complaints here on that one.

A cussing tax...

I'm down to move to the motha land. Re-damn-diculous!!!!

There is mass corruption in Washington, but, ultimately, we the people are responsible for it. Congressmen continue to get re-elected at an 80-90% rate despite what happens on their watch. As long as people listen to talking points and vote on wedge issues instead of job performance, we will continue to have this same kind of leadership. We create no consequences for being a corrupt politician ... most will get re-elected. Those who do not get re-elected will get 6 to 7 figure jobs as lobbyists and their job description will be to wine and dine their former colleagues while they discuss how to divvy up our tax dollars.

We need to win the battle of corruption in Washington and then argue about social policy. As things stand now, conservatives and liberals are just focused on arguing with each other which is exactly how the politicians want it. Corruption goes on and the people are yelling at each other instead of going after the politicians who created the mess. The Occupy movement is really important, it's sole focus is on corruption. However, I guess it lacks the sexy social platform and just isn't that popular.

As for the Supreme Court ruling, it was correct. The type of change you guys want needs to happen on the Congressional level, not at the SC level. It's not the Supreme Court's job to overturn an unpopular law, only strike it down if it is unconstitutional. It was not, so the change has to happen in Congress.

Just called to cancel coverage with my current provider, eh? And, I just sang Oh, Canada! to celebrate my new national pride.

This is the most troubling statement of all. It's not the people that are working that should concern you. If someone has been working for 8 years at Taco Bell you should commend them for holding a steady job. Insurance shouldn't be for those that are well off enough to afford it.

It takes all kinds to make the world function. From the president to the yard guy, affordable coverage should be accessible to those that are working. I'm not saying make it free, but if someone stays on their parents insurance and the parents are willing to pay for then why in the hell should we care?

The real issue is do you consider health care to be a privilege or a right. Right now, it's a privilege with ever increasing premiums, drug costs, etc while subsidizing the non-payers. I don't think ACA is perfect but its far better than BAU. We provide medicare & medicaid for seniors. Why not extend a similar level of coverage for the uninsured?

As for the politics, it's all theater. Pelosi wants to have a victory party. Mitt vows full ACA repeal but he wants to keep everything in ACA but the mandate which he argued, pushed & implemented in MA.

Obamacare is a leaky bucket

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2309

From Edgar K. Browning is Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University
http://econweb.tamu.edu/people/faculty.htm?id=5

My company, know as the largest railroad in the country, has been waiting for this. I have no doubt they will squeeze out non-agreement employees by raising rates and deductibles and suggest the govt option. Freaking pigs. Most corporations played a part in this. They want nothing more than to be free of providing healthcare to their employees, it will be more money in the higher-ups pockets. Thing is, my Fortune 200 health plan is so terrible, i will be FORCED to consider the govt option. I hate you Largest Railroad in the US, and I hate you Obama. What a shit storm. And in case you all are wondering what is terrible about my plan, I have an $11,000 family deductible, and a $5500 individual deductible. That is what a multi-billion dollar corp offers their non-agreement employees. As I have mentioned on here before, I have a chronic form of cancer, and staying alive is expensive. Bunch of A-Holes.

If you don't like it find another job. What we need is more free market and less government mandates.

We should all expect our employers will pay the $2,000 fine per employee and drop coverage as a fringe benefit; it makes financial sense for them to do this. That spread between your policy cost and the fine will not be paid to you, either; that benefit will go directly to the owners/shareholders of the company.

This shouldn't surprise anybody. A majority of you voted for this clown and you are getting what you asked for.

I'm very concerned and wish they'd just leave us the hell alone. Gunna have to stock up on guns and ammo once I graduate if this continues

The problem I have is that your way of thinking is fundamentally different than mine. I do not think I should have to pay the government to provide healthcare through a tax. I believe this is not at all the same as roads or police, as you claim it is

1. Again, can you explain to me how this is different from paying for the fire department, Police, or traffic system?

2. Can you cite your sources for these claims as well as the specific part of the bill you're referring?