Favorite team: | LSU ![]() |
Location: | San Antonio |
Biography: | |
Interests: | |
Occupation: | |
Number of Posts: | 230 |
Registered on: | 9/5/2007 |
Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: This link is provided as a service for all the ACA increasing premium Deniers...
Posted by Vale on 4/10/14 at 1:57 pm
quote:
Nobody is saying you are a liar.
quote:
Rock on with what...deliberate obfuscation ?
Ok, so what is it? Nobody is calling me a liar? Or I am deliberately obfuscating the truth? My goodness, how dishonest can you be? I could quote many more examples of people directly calling me a liar like you just did despite your claims to the contrary. I'm 100% done with this thread as there is obviously no room for honest discourse in it.
re: This link is provided as a service for all the ACA increasing premium Deniers...
Posted by Vale on 4/10/14 at 11:48 am
I've provided many more concrete facts here than you have though. I've linked my exact plan so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. You are the one spouting off numbers and claims without any sort of proof. You won't even link your plan from the website you provided. Nobody else has for that matter, just unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim. So yes, forgive me for being skeptical.
The group think on this board sometimes is unbelievable. The theory here is I guess that nobody is better off under the ACA or that only the poor are better off as a result of subsidies. I provide concrete evidence of significant improvement with a middle class income receiving no subsidies and am shouted down as a liar.
I guess in your world, the insurance companies are making out even more like bandits than before since premiums have increased across the board for everyone without any improvement in coverage. Well, I can simply tell you that is not the case.
But why don't you link your plan? Why won't anyone link their plan? If I'm "willfully ignorant" then give me the tools to inform myself about your situation. Even though I don't really care about you, I will. Because when I create a fictional family of 5 for my wife and I on that website I see a bronze plan for 587, the gold plan I am on for 815, a platinum plan with no deductible and 3000 max out of pocket annual expense for 991 and catastrophic plans unavailable. You see that this doesn't even remotely match up with the story you are telling me.
Check and uncheck plan levels here if you doubt me:
LINK
I fully expect that you will continue to provide a lack of verifiable information while using ad hominem attacks against someone who is giving the only verifiable information in this thread. I'm done unless you start giving concrete information since every word you have said in this thread is 100% unverifiable and doesn't even match up with what I can observe in 5 minutes on that website.
Edit for the "like your plan/doctor keep your plan/doctor". I'm not Obama, and I'm not an Obama supporter and I honestly don't care at all about what he said regarding the ACA. All I care about is my bottom line which is better off than before.
What happened to that 12th hour extension of old non-compliant plans? I know my old insurance company still continues to send me offers to go back to their non-compliant plan that I obviously immediately toss in the garbage.
The group think on this board sometimes is unbelievable. The theory here is I guess that nobody is better off under the ACA or that only the poor are better off as a result of subsidies. I provide concrete evidence of significant improvement with a middle class income receiving no subsidies and am shouted down as a liar.
I guess in your world, the insurance companies are making out even more like bandits than before since premiums have increased across the board for everyone without any improvement in coverage. Well, I can simply tell you that is not the case.
But why don't you link your plan? Why won't anyone link their plan? If I'm "willfully ignorant" then give me the tools to inform myself about your situation. Even though I don't really care about you, I will. Because when I create a fictional family of 5 for my wife and I on that website I see a bronze plan for 587, the gold plan I am on for 815, a platinum plan with no deductible and 3000 max out of pocket annual expense for 991 and catastrophic plans unavailable. You see that this doesn't even remotely match up with the story you are telling me.
Check and uncheck plan levels here if you doubt me:
LINK
I fully expect that you will continue to provide a lack of verifiable information while using ad hominem attacks against someone who is giving the only verifiable information in this thread. I'm done unless you start giving concrete information since every word you have said in this thread is 100% unverifiable and doesn't even match up with what I can observe in 5 minutes on that website.
Edit for the "like your plan/doctor keep your plan/doctor". I'm not Obama, and I'm not an Obama supporter and I honestly don't care at all about what he said regarding the ACA. All I care about is my bottom line which is better off than before.
What happened to that 12th hour extension of old non-compliant plans? I know my old insurance company still continues to send me offers to go back to their non-compliant plan that I obviously immediately toss in the garbage.
re: This link is provided as a service for all the ACA increasing premium Deniers...
Posted by Vale on 4/9/14 at 10:28 pm
Yeah a sweetheart deal. My 270 a month plan didn't cover me for maternal care (I'm a dude). It was, like I said, for all intents and purposes a catastrophic plan that was never going to cover anything unless I had a major illness.
The fact that I had to pay 270 for that while a family of 5 was getting actual coverage for 432 means that a significant portion of my premium was being used to subsidize plans like his.
The ACA may not be great, it may not be better than before. But what existed before was no panacea and was obviously broken just as evidenced by this one paired example. Maybe I'm being selfish but I'm thrilled to have 80 bucks a month more in my pocket and to be getting coverage at least moderately commensurate to my premium.
The fact that I had to pay 270 for that while a family of 5 was getting actual coverage for 432 means that a significant portion of my premium was being used to subsidize plans like his.
The ACA may not be great, it may not be better than before. But what existed before was no panacea and was obviously broken just as evidenced by this one paired example. Maybe I'm being selfish but I'm thrilled to have 80 bucks a month more in my pocket and to be getting coverage at least moderately commensurate to my premium.
re: This link is provided as a service for all the ACA increasing premium Deniers...
Posted by Vale on 4/9/14 at 9:55 pm
quote:
Mine for my family of five went from $432 a month to $1055 a month and my deductible went up.
I just saw this. It seriously pisses me off that the cheapest private plan I could get had me paying 270 a month for crap coverage that I almost never used while a family of five got coverage that I assume was pretty decent based on the fact that the new plans cover less for $432 a month.
I'm sorry your prices went up, but that was a sweetheart deal before if it was a private plan.
re: This link is provided as a service for all the ACA increasing premium Deniers...
Posted by Vale on 4/9/14 at 9:08 pm
quote:
Have you checked out the network? Do you know which services, procedures, and drugs that are no longer covered?
To be fair, my insurance pre January 1 was complete drivel, for all intents and purposes a catastrophic type plan of plan that was costing me 270 a month and covering essentially nothing, but it was the best I could get. I have much more covered now than before and like I said my prescription costs are down as well.
The plan I'm using is the Humana Gold on this page that is still available exactly as I purchased it back in November:
LINK
37, married, but my wife gets her insurance through her work and what I can get through her is even worse than what I had before. No kids and none planned.
quote:
And what are your thoughts on my $7476 annual increase without getting better benefits?
I honestly find that hard to believe. You can see I'm paying 2724 total annually on my plan. I can't claim to understand why the plans would be that divergent based on geographical differences.
re: This link is provided as a service for all the ACA increasing premium Deniers...
Posted by Vale on 4/9/14 at 8:47 pm
quote:
Did you deductible go up?
Sorry for the slow replies, I don't check here too often and forgot I had posted.
No, my insurance after Jan 1 is better in every measurable way than before except my pcp changed. I don't like my new pcp as much as my old one but I'm the type of person who cares more about my bottom line than personal relationships with people I see maybe 4 times a year.
re: This link is provided as a service for all the ACA increasing premium Deniers...
Posted by Vale on 4/8/14 at 11:28 am
I assume this post is supposed to be sarcasm, but speaking personally I have $85 a month more in my pocket as a result of the Humana Gold plan I picked up after the ACA came into effect.
No subsidy, but my premium dropped 43 a month and my prescription costs dropped around 40 a month as well. Maybe I'm just lucky.
No subsidy, but my premium dropped 43 a month and my prescription costs dropped around 40 a month as well. Maybe I'm just lucky.
re: Your Top 10 Favorite Games Of All-Time?
Posted by Vale on 9/26/12 at 4:02 pm
Civilization IV
Counterstrike
Alpha Centauri
Master of Orion 2
Master of Magic
Mass Effect 2
Diablo 2
League of Legends
Hard to go beyond that as there as a huge dropoff already from 1-8 on that list but anything below those wouldn't even be in the same zip code.
Counterstrike
Alpha Centauri
Master of Orion 2
Master of Magic
Mass Effect 2
Diablo 2
League of Legends
Hard to go beyond that as there as a huge dropoff already from 1-8 on that list but anything below those wouldn't even be in the same zip code.
re: A survey on the direction of PC franchises
Posted by Vale on 8/2/12 at 12:40 am
I'm sorry, but Civilization has not improved since Civilization 4 aka. the greatest pc game of all time.
Civilization 5 is an embarrassment.
Civilization 5 is an embarrassment.
re: Official Diablo 3: Reaper of Souls Discussion Thread
Posted by Vale on 6/7/12 at 10:14 pm
Every time I log in, the entirety of my buddy list that is doing "endgame content" is repeatedly farming the latest farmable chest or goblin people have found.
Nobody wants to farm Valor stacks because the reward to time spent is so much worse than mindlessly popping a chest ad infinitum. Right now the endgame farming is infinitely more dreary than Baal runs ever were.
They just made way too many mistakes with way too little testing and given that I don't see any mechanism for a ladder reset (ala open and closed realm from D2) there doesn't seem to be much hope that it will get better.
Hopefully Torchlight 2 will scratch the right itch.
Nobody wants to farm Valor stacks because the reward to time spent is so much worse than mindlessly popping a chest ad infinitum. Right now the endgame farming is infinitely more dreary than Baal runs ever were.
They just made way too many mistakes with way too little testing and given that I don't see any mechanism for a ladder reset (ala open and closed realm from D2) there doesn't seem to be much hope that it will get better.
Hopefully Torchlight 2 will scratch the right itch.
re: WCF Game 6 Thunder-Spurs Game Thread: 99-107 Final Thunder to the Finals
Posted by Vale on 6/6/12 at 11:15 pm
I can't even beginto understand why Joey Crawford still has a job. The fact that he was involved in an elimination game for the Spurs just boggles my mind completely.
re: Anyone play Dota 2?
Posted by Vale on 6/4/12 at 9:14 pm
I'll be playing it when it is out of beta. If I want to play a game that hasn't been tested or balanced, I'll play Diablo 3.
re: Official Diablo 3 Player Information Thread
Posted by Vale on 5/12/12 at 3:53 am
Cookar#1711
Primary: Demon Hunter
Secondary: Witch Doctor
Mode: Normal
Primary: Demon Hunter
Secondary: Witch Doctor
Mode: Normal
re: Official Diablo 3: Reaper of Souls Discussion Thread
Posted by Vale on 5/8/12 at 11:08 am
Not really a spoiler when the entire skill tree is available here.
re: The Tebow thread - Bears edition
Posted by Vale on 12/11/11 at 6:41 pm
Thank you Lord for inexplicably caring about a football game more than malaria victims in Africa.
re: Ok.. about this whole, Lsu is the best of all time stuff. Here's some facts.
Posted by Vale on 12/7/11 at 9:04 am
quote:
And will be among the 10 best in the last 10 yrs.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
re: Ok.. about this whole, Lsu is the best of all time stuff. Here's some facts.
Posted by Vale on 12/7/11 at 8:51 am
Your entire argument is based on the fact that we will not get to play a new team in the bowl. So because you got a rematch we are worse than 2009 Bama if we win?
If Bama belongs in the championship game, then
2011 Alabama x 2 has to be considered equivalent to 2009 Florida + Texas assuming LSU wins
2011 Oregon > 2009 Va Tech
2011 Arkansas >> 2009 LSU
2011 Georgia >> 2009 Ole Miss
2011 West Virigina >> the best of your other teams
2011 Auburn > the second best of your other teams
So wow, it sure looks like the top 7 of the 14 opponents we faced were strictly better than the top 7 of the 14 opponents you faced. In some cases, much better.
So what is your argument? That the worst teams you played all year are slightly better than the worst teams we played? Congratulations on that.
So what have we shown here? If I take out just one biased argument from your post that is constructed carefully with maximum bias to "prove" a point you wish to make, the entire argument is already in favor of LSU.
If I want to do more, I certainly can. If you want I can strip away more layers to remove more doubt.
If Bama belongs in the championship game, then
2011 Alabama x 2 has to be considered equivalent to 2009 Florida + Texas assuming LSU wins
2011 Oregon > 2009 Va Tech
2011 Arkansas >> 2009 LSU
2011 Georgia >> 2009 Ole Miss
2011 West Virigina >> the best of your other teams
2011 Auburn > the second best of your other teams
So wow, it sure looks like the top 7 of the 14 opponents we faced were strictly better than the top 7 of the 14 opponents you faced. In some cases, much better.
So what is your argument? That the worst teams you played all year are slightly better than the worst teams we played? Congratulations on that.
So what have we shown here? If I take out just one biased argument from your post that is constructed carefully with maximum bias to "prove" a point you wish to make, the entire argument is already in favor of LSU.
If I want to do more, I certainly can. If you want I can strip away more layers to remove more doubt.
re: My 8 team playoff idea (involves 10 teams with 2 play in games)
Posted by Vale on 12/5/11 at 2:01 pm
GDs format is a 6 team playoff. Top 2 seeds MUST be conference champions. Other 4 seeds are up for grabs from anywhere. The seeding and teams selected are done by a known selection committee so there is accountability and you don't have selections like the Sugar Bowl this year that are all about the money.
re: My 8 team playoff idea (involves 10 teams with 2 play in games)
Posted by Vale on 12/5/11 at 10:10 am
Gary Danielson's format is 100% better than this.
re: Do any of you have delusional Bama friends?
Posted by Vale on 11/28/11 at 9:24 am
quote:
Can you prove LSU's better than Houston?
No, and that is precisely the problem with a rematch. I CAN prove LSU is better than Alabama: 9-6 in your home stadium. I cannot prove that LSU is better than some other teams in this discussion without a game.
Popular