Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

Your Daily Dose of Schadenfreude

January 6th, 2014 - 11:37 am

BOOFRIGGINGHOO

It felt good to type that headline just now — my sticky note reminder fell off my monitor, and I hadn’t done one of these in a while. So let us take our rotten joy now to Oregon, where yet another ObamaCare supporter is getting exactly what she wanted, good and hard. Read with a mean little grin:

One Oregon mother says that she is unable to afford health insurance for her and her 18-month-old son because it’s too expensive.

The woman — who wishes to remain anonymous — tells KOIN-TV that she originally championed President Barack Obama’s signature health care law because she thought it would help people in her situation.

“I’ve been a cheerleader for the Affordable Care Act since I heard about it and I assumed that it was designed for people in my situation,” she told KOIN. “I was planning on using the Affordable Care Act and I had done the online calculator in advance to make sure I was going to be able to afford it.”

Her husband works for a non-profit organization that pays for his health care, but the couple is unable to afford to have her and their son covered under his plan. And she’s been told their combined income is too much to qualify for a subsidized health care plan under Cover Oregon.

“It wasn’t until I started the process and got an agent that I started hearing from them I wasn’t going to qualify for subsidies because I qualify on my husband’s insurance,” she told KOIN.

In other words, Miss Anonymous supported ObamaCare when she thought you were going to pay for it.

Scratch a prog, find a greedy, grubby thief.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Using the information in the article, I'm going to piece the real story together, which is far worse than I initially thought.

First, it's a red flag that the husband carries insurance through his employer, but doesn't cover his wife and kid. The money is pre-tax and it's not cheap, but not back breaking either - when you're already accustomed to paying for it. That said, I don't know the husband's health situation, but what kind of man insures himself before his wife and child? He could decline his company's policy and go buy a plan for his kid alone elsewhere, worst case.

Next, the article says the combined income disqualified them from subsidies (in addition to her being eligible for her husband's plan, I assume). I believe that's over $94,200. Cost of living aside, that's decent money.

Now here's what happened: Husband previously insured everyone on his plan. Obamacare came along and they decided they would drop the wife and child from his policy during open enrollment. The expectation was that, according to the online calculator, they'd be able to get insured free or close to free. This saving the family ~$125 a month. So he dropped them with the expectation that they would have coverage on January 1. Unfortunately for them, the agent actually appeared to do his job and confirmed that their income was too high and she had qualified for her husband's plan. Now it's too late to add them back to his policy.

Basically, it's not that they CAN'T afford it, it's that they don't WANT to pay for it - at our expense. I feel sorry for the child. It has to be raised by a couple on unprincipled degenerates.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Typical of a Progressive. Whenever the government offers a"free" goody they rush on line. They will never learn that nothing in this world is free and survival is based on hard work and individual initiative.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (20)
All Comments   (20)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Here's how she can get the kid covered, liberal style:

Divorce the dad. She'll get child support, AND the state will order dad to pay for the kid's health insurance as a standard support order boilerplate. Likely, her own income will drop enough to cover all of her care on the taxpayers' expense, too.

From her perspective, (and for a feminist, the only one that matters), problem solved.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Scratch a progressive and you find a grubby thief."

Well, actually more a person who is more covetous than they are a thief.

Interestingly, the Apostle Paul twice makes note that covetousness is a form of idolatry. (e.g. Colossians 3:5) This is really the worship of a false idol, and that idol is the idea that government is god. The covetousness is realized as theft when government is induced to seize private assets to pay for the progressive's desires of the moment.

And indeed, what liberals (er, "progressives") really are attempting to do is have a secular Millennium here on earth, one that they are in control of. But all past attempts, whether under Stalin, or Pol Pot, Mao or Adolf Hitler, have quickly degenerated into hell on earth.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Don't fret, lady. Remember, the reason you cannot afford insurance is not Barack's fault. It's now the fault of "income inequality". So you can make the same stupid mistake of voting democrat next time around.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
The rubes don't always self-identify, but if you listen close, you can pick them out by the echoing sound made when their huge tears splash down on the ice cold floor.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Those nonprofits sure pay well don't they? Or she has a really good job herself, eh?
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Remember there is a marriage penalty build into O-Care. If they were both single and shacking up she would qualify for subsidies.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
HA HA! /N. Muntz
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm picking up the vibe that she and her 'Husband' aren't actually , you know, like, Married. Otherwise even under Democrats, I can't see a legitimate minor child denied coverage on a parents policy.

Maybe I'm reading to much into it. But I don't think so.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Using the information in the article, I'm going to piece the real story together, which is far worse than I initially thought.

First, it's a red flag that the husband carries insurance through his employer, but doesn't cover his wife and kid. The money is pre-tax and it's not cheap, but not back breaking either - when you're already accustomed to paying for it. That said, I don't know the husband's health situation, but what kind of man insures himself before his wife and child? He could decline his company's policy and go buy a plan for his kid alone elsewhere, worst case.

Next, the article says the combined income disqualified them from subsidies (in addition to her being eligible for her husband's plan, I assume). I believe that's over $94,200. Cost of living aside, that's decent money.

Now here's what happened: Husband previously insured everyone on his plan. Obamacare came along and they decided they would drop the wife and child from his policy during open enrollment. The expectation was that, according to the online calculator, they'd be able to get insured free or close to free. This saving the family ~$125 a month. So he dropped them with the expectation that they would have coverage on January 1. Unfortunately for them, the agent actually appeared to do his job and confirmed that their income was too high and she had qualified for her husband's plan. Now it's too late to add them back to his policy.

Basically, it's not that they CAN'T afford it, it's that they don't WANT to pay for it - at our expense. I feel sorry for the child. It has to be raised by a couple on unprincipled degenerates.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I feel sorry for the child. It has to be raised by a couple on unprincipled degenerates."

That, of course, describes at least 40% of the population now.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
what kind of man insures himself before his wife and child?

The kind of man that has the correct priorities. It's far more important for a family for the father to be insured, you idiot, than any other family member. If something happens to the father the financial repercussions are far greater than if something were to happen to any other family member.

You really should think first, before asking "what kind of man" puts the financial needs of his family above his own.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
That tells me all I need to know about you. Uncivilized and selfish. Some female or male will be lucky to have you bringing home the bread.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wrong insurance. It is far more important that the primary breadwinner (the father in this case) have LIFE insurance. It is actually more important that the wife and the child have HEALTH insurance, statistically they are more likely to need it.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
I disagree. I would jump in front of a bus to save my kid, and I would never miss a payment on my life insurance policy.

Sounds like you're rationalizing your own possibly-pathetic behavior. I hope you're not a parent.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you would jump in front of the bus, then it is you who need the health insurance, not your kid.
Only if you would toss your kid in front of the bus to save yourself would you need to insure your kid before yourself.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's such a childishly literal interpretation of what I said.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Really? The financial repercussions are far greater if something happens to the father than any other family member?
The 1950s would like to have your comment back.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, generally speaking, yes.
I mean unless you are sending your underaged children out to labor and they earn more than you do.
Or if they regularly engage in riskier behavior than you do.

Now granted, we could be assuming that the general cost of medical care for a child is going to be greater than the general cost of medical care for an adult, but that is a massively subjective issue, and it is much more likely that the combination of health care costs plus loss of income for an adult is going to be greater than the combination of health care costs plus . . . an extra year of grade school? would be for a child.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
I work for a small company. I do not pay anything for the health insurance my company provides, nor do I have the ability to opt out of the coverage. However, the premium to cover a spouse or children is extremely expensive. For me to add my husband and our two children would cost close to $1000 per month. That would break us financially. (Fortunately, his employer-sponsored plan costs less than $300 per month and covers all of four of us.)

14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Typical of a Progressive. Whenever the government offers a"free" goody they rush on line. They will never learn that nothing in this world is free and survival is based on hard work and individual initiative.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All