ACA: For the Win!

[Maryland Patriot]

I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.

no, actually your chart shows that consumption went down, that means that less people can afford to go to their doctor now.

 

[Arianrhod]

Well, you can always read the text:

Text of H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us

No thanks.

And that is only part of it.

So you haven't read it, you don't intend to read it, you deny that it's the complete text (despite the fact that it is, but you refuse to read it), and you prefer to speculate based on rumor and regurgitated Breitbart.

This, ladies and germs, is your RW believer.

Ladies and gentlemen, here is your typical left wing idiot.

PredFan believes that people who read and keep themselves informed are "idiots." It's like he's co-opted English words and used them to invent his own language.

Your stupidity is boring me, retard.

At least this time you remembered the comma.

 

[dblack]

I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.

no, actually your chart shows that consumption went down, that means that less people can afford to go to their doctor now.

Were you talking to someone else? I'm worried about the freeloaders. I think we should all have to carry insurance id cards, like with car insurance, to prove we're sponsored by an insurance company.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.

no, actually your chart shows that consumption went down, that means that less people can afford to go to their doctor now.

Were you talking to someone else? I'm worried about the freeloaders. I think we should all have to carry insurance id cards, like with car insurance, to prove we're sponsored by an insurance company.

Yes I was was talking to the idiot that posted the chart. Sorry.
I agree with you however, everyone should carry papers proving they have insurance. and everyone should pay according to their needs and their health record. Just like car insurance, you pay for what you need and its based on your driving record.
Have an addiction or alcohol issues in the past? Pay more, smoke? Pay more. live in da hood and have a history of having lead removed from yo ass? pay a whole lot more. Live a proven healthy lifestyle with no illnesses in the past? pay less. Not based on income at all.

 

[dblack]

I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.

no, actually your chart shows that consumption went down, that means that less people can afford to go to their doctor now.

Were you talking to someone else? I'm worried about the freeloaders. I think we should all have to carry insurance id cards, like with car insurance, to prove we're sponsored by an insurance company.

Yes I was was talking to the idiot that posted the chart. Sorry.
I agree with you however, everyone should carry papers proving they have insurance. and everyone should pay according to their needs and their health record. Just like car insurance, you pay for what you need and its based on your driving record.
Have an addiction or alcohol issues in the past? Pay more, smoke? Pay more. live in da hood and have a history of having lead removed from yo ass? pay a whole lot more. Live a proven healthy lifestyle with no illnesses in the past? pay less. Not based on income at all.

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess. People with a history of sexually transmitted diseases, or a lifestyle prone to catching them, should all be require to pay their fair share as well.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.

no, actually your chart shows that consumption went down, that means that less people can afford to go to their doctor now.

Were you talking to someone else? I'm worried about the freeloaders. I think we should all have to carry insurance id cards, like with car insurance, to prove we're sponsored by an insurance company.

Yes I was was talking to the idiot that posted the chart. Sorry.
I agree with you however, everyone should carry papers proving they have insurance. and everyone should pay according to their needs and their health record. Just like car insurance, you pay for what you need and its based on your driving record.
Have an addiction or alcohol issues in the past? Pay more, smoke? Pay more. live in da hood and have a history of having lead removed from yo ass? pay a whole lot more. Live a proven healthy lifestyle with no illnesses in the past? pay less. Not based on income at all.

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess. People with a history of sexually transmitted diseases, or a lifestyle prone to catching them, should all be require to pay their fair share as well.

and for gay guys there should be the option of the rectal rider. additional insurance to cover rectal reconstruction after it gets ripped open at a drunken gay costume party.

 

[Arianrhod]

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.

Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly? Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things. People need to be punished!

 

[dblack]

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.

Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly? Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things. People need to be punished!

We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.

 

[Arianrhod]

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.

Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly? Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things. People need to be punished!

We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.

That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork. And I note the choice of the word "obey." Health care is not religion.

 

[dblack]

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.

Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly? Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things. People need to be punished!

We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.

That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork. And I note the choice of the word "obey." Health care is not religion.

What does following the law have to do with religion?

 

[Arianrhod]

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.

Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly? Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things. People need to be punished!

We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.

That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork. And I note the choice of the word "obey." Health care is not religion.

What does following the law have to do with religion?

Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey." Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers? (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat? That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork. Your plan would increase it. And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.

 

[dblack]

Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.

Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly? Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things. People need to be punished!

We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.

That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork. And I note the choice of the word "obey." Health care is not religion.

What does following the law have to do with religion?

Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey." Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers? (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat? That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork. Your plan would increase it. And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.

Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.

 

[Arianrhod]

Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly? Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things. People need to be punished!

We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.

That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork. And I note the choice of the word "obey." Health care is not religion.

What does following the law have to do with religion?

Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey." Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers? (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat? That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork. Your plan would increase it. And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.

Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.

So you want more government control. I see.

 

[dblack]

We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.

That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork. And I note the choice of the word "obey." Health care is not religion.

What does following the law have to do with religion?

Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey." Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers? (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat? That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork. Your plan would increase it. And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.

Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.

So you want more government control. I see.

You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?

 

[Arianrhod]

That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork. And I note the choice of the word "obey." Health care is not religion.

What does following the law have to do with religion?

Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey." Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers? (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat? That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork. Your plan would increase it. And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.

Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.

So you want more government control. I see.

You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?

Education is more effective. But you could combine the two. Show proof that you've completed a course in healthy eating habits, for instance, and take a deduction for it.

 

[dblack]

What does following the law have to do with religion?

Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey." Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers? (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat? That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork. Your plan would increase it. And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.

Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.

So you want more government control. I see.

You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?

Education is more effective. But you could combine the two. Show proof that you've completed a course in healthy eating habits, for instance, and take a deduction for it.

Exactly. Or deductions for people who lose weight, or bring their cholesterol down. On the flip side, we could tax dangerous activities. People who ride motorcycles or abuse drugs or alcohol could be taxed for the extra risk they impose on the health care system.

 

[Arianrhod]

Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey." Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers? (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat? That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork. Your plan would increase it. And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.

Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.

So you want more government control. I see.

You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?

Education is more effective. But you could combine the two. Show proof that you've completed a course in healthy eating habits, for instance, and take a deduction for it.

Exactly. Or deductions for people who lose weight, or bring their cholesterol down. On the flip side, we could tax dangerous activities. People who ride motorcycles or abuse drugs or alcohol could be taxed for the extra risk they impose on the health care system.

Smokers are already penalized by higher premiums, but if you start imposing taxes for all those other things you'll have people screaming about the Nanny State. Not to mention lying and/or flying under the radar.

 

[dblack]

Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.

So you want more government control. I see.

You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?

Education is more effective. But you could combine the two. Show proof that you've completed a course in healthy eating habits, for instance, and take a deduction for it.

Exactly. Or deductions for people who lose weight, or bring their cholesterol down. On the flip side, we could tax dangerous activities. People who ride motorcycles or abuse drugs or alcohol could be taxed for the extra risk they impose on the health care system.

Smokers are already penalized by higher premiums, but if you start imposing taxes for all those other things you'll have people screaming about the Nanny State. Not to mention lying and/or flying under the radar.

**** those whiners. We could just require that they have insurance for all their bad habits. Or pay the additional taxes. It's their choice.

 

[Arianrhod]

So you want more government control. I see.

You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?

Education is more effective. But you could combine the two. Show proof that you've completed a course in healthy eating habits, for instance, and take a deduction for it.

Exactly. Or deductions for people who lose weight, or bring their cholesterol down. On the flip side, we could tax dangerous activities. People who ride motorcycles or abuse drugs or alcohol could be taxed for the extra risk they impose on the health care system.

Smokers are already penalized by higher premiums, but if you start imposing taxes for all those other things you'll have people screaming about the Nanny State. Not to mention lying and/or flying under the radar.

**** those whiners. We could just require that they have insurance for all their bad habits. Or pay the additional taxes. It's their choice.

See, I knew you were going for something like this.

 

[dblack]

You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?

Education is more effective. But you could combine the two. Show proof that you've completed a course in healthy eating habits, for instance, and take a deduction for it.

Exactly. Or deductions for people who lose weight, or bring their cholesterol down. On the flip side, we could tax dangerous activities. People who ride motorcycles or abuse drugs or alcohol could be taxed for the extra risk they impose on the health care system.

Smokers are already penalized by higher premiums, but if you start imposing taxes for all those other things you'll have people screaming about the Nanny State. Not to mention lying and/or flying under the radar.

**** those whiners. We could just require that they have insurance for all their bad habits. Or pay the additional taxes. It's their choice.

See, I knew you were going for something like this.

Like what?