Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 16:34:30 GMT -5
Yes it is a freedom. A freedom from predatory insurance companies that sell you worthless insurance. It is no different than government making auto makers do recalls due to defective products. Only the ACA does it with defective insurance. Which came first - defective insurance or Obamacare? Why should a 70 year old woman be forced to carry pregnancy coverage in her insurance? Defective insurance came first. People were dropped for getting sick. People were denied insurance due to a pre existing condition. People with defective insurance were driven into bankruptcy due to bad luck. The ACA frees people from this. It is a freedom. Do you not like freedom? Look, insurance is about what could happen, not what will. My insurance will cover me getting breast cancer even though it is incredibly rare in men. Do you think it should not be covered? |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 2, 2013 16:36:16 GMT -5
Which came first - defective insurance or Obamacare? Why should a 70 year old woman be forced to carry pregnancy coverage in her insurance? Defective insurance came first. People were dropped for getting sick. People were denied insurance due to a pre existing condition. People with defective insurance were driven into bankruptcy due to bad luck. The ACA frees people from this. It is a freedom. Do you not like freedom? Look, insurance is about what could happen, not what will. My insurance will cover me getting breast cancer even though it is incredibly rare in men. Do you think it should not be covered? Insurance is almost like this guarantee for the future. I think about it and it seems like an odd thing. And it is another middleman in your life. I don't know. I don't know if I need them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 16:38:36 GMT -5
Since those who passed Obamacare did not know what was in it until they passed it - why should I support it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 2, 2013 16:45:04 GMT -5
Since those who passed Obamacare did not know what was in it until they passed it - why should I support it? You don't support it. You never voted for Obama. So you just gonna have to go along with it. Try a better strategy next time. Nominate good officials. Get laws passed that you like. That's the way it works. I understand why you are complaining. Your "side"has taken quite a few bad blows in the last bunch of decades, and the future seems really empty of promise there's no candidates coming out I don't see a whole lot of positives Sorry |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 16:45:58 GMT -5
Since those who passed Obamacare did not know what was in it until they passed it - why should I support it? Because it is the law of the land. Or I'm the devil's advocate.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 16:49:21 GMT -5
semi I think you are playing devil's advocate. |
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 2, 2013 18:02:29 GMT -5
Which came first - defective insurance or Obamacare? Why should a 70 year old woman be forced to carry pregnancy coverage in her insurance? Defective insurance came first. People were dropped for getting sick. People were denied insurance due to a pre existing condition. People with defective insurance were driven into bankruptcy due to bad luck. The ACA frees people from this. It is a freedom. Do you not like freedom? Look, insurance is about what could happen, not what will. My insurance will cover me getting breast cancer even though it is incredibly rare in men. Do you think it should not be covered? What are your chances of getting pregnant? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 2, 2013 18:06:03 GMT -5
Which came first - defective insurance or Obamacare? Why should a 70 year old woman be forced to carry pregnancy coverage in her insurance? Defective insurance came first. People were dropped for getting sick. People were denied insurance due to a pre existing condition. People with defective insurance were driven into bankruptcy due to bad luck. The ACA frees people from this. It is a freedom. Do you not like freedom? Look, insurance is about what could happen, not what will. My insurance will cover me getting breast cancer even though it is incredibly rare in men. Do you think it should not be covered? Well how about that. It takes a Capitalist to make a Socialist argument even vaguely coherent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 19:50:10 GMT -5
Defective insurance came first. People were dropped for getting sick. People were denied insurance due to a pre existing condition. People with defective insurance were driven into bankruptcy due to bad luck. The ACA frees people from this. It is a freedom. Do you not like freedom? Look, insurance is about what could happen, not what will. My insurance will cover me getting breast cancer even though it is incredibly rare in men. Do you think it should not be covered? Well how about that. It takes a Capitalist to make a Socialist argument even vaguely coherent. "Vaguely coherent" is generous. I was either being evasive or playing word games or worse. The whole 'breast cancer' point was simply me being narcissistic. If it was good enough for me then it must be good enough for you. That it wasn't didn't matter. If I play loose enough with the word 'defective' I can make just about anything be defective. The whole point of that was to engage in collective punishment. "If you like your plan you can keep it," but only as long as I don't twist a definition and engage in the unethical. In the end it would turn out to be, "If I like your plan then you can keep it." Otherwise I'll simply declare it to be 'defective'. Even if you liked a questionable insurance plan I'd engage in collective punishment and remove it from your choices. The only freedom that would have been allowed would have been the freedom to agree with me. That is no freedom at all. There is also the matter of making people unaccountable for their actions. Thus the 'freedom from....' nonsense. I was simply advocating for being irresponsible and putting it out there with a shiny wrapper. Disconnecting the consequences from an action is a perverse incentive. In the long run, you reward bad behavior and get more of it. Calling it freedom is bunk. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 2, 2013 19:59:31 GMT -5
Well how about that. It takes a Capitalist to make a Socialist argument even vaguely coherent. "Vaguely coherent" is generous. I was either being evasive or playing word games or worse. The whole 'breast cancer' point was simply me being narcissistic. If it was good enough for me then it must be good enough for you. That it wasn't didn't matter. If I play loose enough with the word 'defective' I can make just about anything be defective. The whole point of that was to engage in collective punishment. "If you like your plan you can keep it," but only as long as I don't twist a definition and engage in the unethical. In the end it would turn out to be, "If I like your plan then you can keep it." Otherwise I'll simply declare it to be 'defective'. Even if you liked a questionable insurance plan I'd engage in collective punishment and remove it from your choices. The only freedom that would have been allowed would have been the freedom to agree with me. That is no freedom at all. There is also the matter of making people unaccountable for their actions. Thus the 'freedom from....' nonsense. I was simply advocating for being irresponsible and putting it out there with a shiny wrapper. Disconnecting the consequences from an action is a perverse incentive. In the long run, you reward bad behavior and get more of it. Calling it freedom is bunk. Oh indeed. Still, your devil's advocacy made far more sense than the usual delusional word games coming from the Obama administration. The difference being you've put some thought into making this argument and President Unexpectedly simply believes his own hype. It doesn't matter to the left that people have gone out into the market and purchased insurance that suited their needs, and that they were happy with. It never did - in spite of President Unexpectedly's insistence that it did. But where they offer blatant, bald-face lies and repeat them over and over again hoping that people will believe them; you've abused the language to the point where the lies were much harder for the average person to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 2, 2013 20:37:31 GMT -5
The use of rescission to drop people who got sick, by finding an undotted 'i' or uncrossed 't' in their application was unethical. It is the insurer saying he doesn't want to fulfill the obligation he was paid for. I'm not talking about fraud, here, but about honest mistakes. I have no problem with making that one illegal.
Lifetime maxima, for example, basically says the insurer can get out of his responsibility to share the risk when it gets too expensive for him. People who get really sick are screwed, and that can happen to anyone.
Eliminating the insurers' ability to exclude prior conditions is... problematic. When an insurer can do this a consumer becomes trapped - at a job, or with a particular policy. However, the idea of insurance is also to share risk, not to assume certainty. I suspect this was done for social reasons; basically, forcing all insurers to assume extra risk, and therefore charge extra premiums, so that people can leave jobs or aren't killed when they get fired and can't buy insurance that covers whatever they have. Most of us will get some problem as we get older; this might be a good idea. The jury is still out.
All of these things cost more money (higher premiums). Some people can't afford those premiums that high and might be willing to take the chance they won't get sick or they'll never want to switch jobs. But I suspect it comes down to this: someone gets sick and blows through their lifetime maximum, or they get fired (lotta that going around the last couple of years) and they can't get coverage for the thing they used to be covered for. They can't pay for their care, so their either die or the hospital/doctor eats it, which they handle with a variety of arcane mechanisms including cost shifting onto the uninsured. Except that there will be far fewer of those, so who pays? The hospitals would demand the government pay. Or that it revoke EMTALA. Or they would refuse to obey EMTALA, or they would go out of business.
Healthcare is a mess in this country, for a lot of reasons. I can kind of understand what they tried to do in some parts of the ACA, but I suspect ultimately it will fail, or its benefits will be significantly reduced via technical corrections. The alternative is fiscal catastrophe for the nation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 21:54:44 GMT -5
While healthcare may be a mess in this country === is it okay under Obamacare if you lose your cancer doctor because the new law says so?
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 4, 2013 12:41:40 GMT -5
While healthcare may be a mess in this country === is it okay under Obamacare if you lose your cancer doctor because the new law says so? [br Of course it is , lol Are you debating or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 4, 2013 12:42:36 GMT -5
"Vaguely coherent" is generous. I was either being evasive or playing word games or worse. The whole 'breast cancer' point was simply me being narcissistic. If it was good enough for me then it must be good enough for you. That it wasn't didn't matter. If I play loose enough with the word 'defective' I can make just about anything be defective. The whole point of that was to engage in collective punishment. "If you like your plan you can keep it," but only as long as I don't twist a definition and engage in the unethical. In the end it would turn out to be, "If I like your plan then you can keep it." Otherwise I'll simply declare it to be 'defective'. Even if you liked a questionable insurance plan I'd engage in collective punishment and remove it from your choices. The only freedom that would have been allowed would have been the freedom to agree with me. That is no freedom at all. There is also the matter of making people unaccountable for their actions. Thus the 'freedom from....' nonsense. I was simply advocating for being irresponsible and putting it out there with a shiny wrapper. Disconnecting the consequences from an action is a perverse incentive. In the long run, you reward bad behavior and get more of it. Calling it freedom is bunk. Oh indeed. Still, your devil's advocacy made far more sense than the usual delusional word games coming from the Obama administration. The difference being you've put some thought into making this argument and President Unexpectedly simply believes his own hype. It doesn't matter to the left that people have gone out into the market and purchased insurance that suited their needs, and that they were happy with. It never did - in spite of President Unexpectedly's insistence that it did. But where they offer blatant, bald-face lies and repeat them over and over again hoping that people will believe them; you've abused the language to the point where the lies were much harder for the average person to see. Kudus on the imagination! |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:35:45 GMT -5
So none if you die hard repubs like it? That's so odd! Heck we got a giant country right next to us that has even more health care rights and they love it! if you guys are to get out a bit and ask around you might learn this Personally I'm on the fence about it right now. But a lot of it is because of The Republicans way of kicking and screaming the whole way and even shutting down the government because of it nothing can work with that lack of cooperation. And admit it. Deep down inside you guys are terrified it actually might work then you would even look worse. Which I don't think it's possible ha ha No they don't. Their pets have better health care than the people do. Average wait for an MRI is about 6 months. Same for most major surgeries. People are dying waiting for appointments. And it's costing them far more than they can afford. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:37:47 GMT -5
Since those who passed Obamacare did not know what was in it until they passed it - why should I support it? You don't support it. You never voted for Obama. So you just gonna have to go along with it. Try a better strategy next time. Nominate good officials. Get laws passed that you like. That's the way it works. I understand why you are complaining. Your "side"has taken quite a few bad blows in the last bunch of decades, and the future seems really empty of promise there's no candidates coming out I don't see a whole lot of positives Sorry There is no health care law. Either that, or the current occupant of the WH is a felon. You decide which. |
|
