"""Obama-Care"""

[dblack]

However, don't think for a second that health insurance companies did not have a heavy hand in drafting the ACA law. We did, and made damn sure that the government did not become our competitor, like they did with Medicare.

That's been clear from the outset. The entire purpose of ACA was to entrench the dominant insurance corporations as defacto public utilities. That's the new 'American Dream' - using government to make yourself money. **** you very much.

Don't blame me, Blackie. If I had had my way, I would have bypassed the insurance companies altogether and simply expanded Medicare to all ages, but the Republicans weren't having that, so I bought stock in insurance companies. Who am I to blow against the wind?

A leech promoting corporatist government?

So anyone who works for a corporation is a "leech" now?

So, you have no reading comprehension? Or is it that you have no argument and have to resort to strawman bs?

 

[dblack]

Believe me, Blackie, whatever you may think about the government, I promise you that big business is NOT your BFF.

That's exactly my point. That's why inviting them to team up with government is such a bad idea.

 

[dblack]

The core conceit of ACA is the claim that it reigns in corporate power. The exact opposite is true. It enlists government to expand their power, forcing us to buy their products whether we want them or not.

 

[Arianrhod]

Where is the newborn's liberty?

You don't understand the word.

The newborn never had a chance to learn about your Randian paradise. Your only response to that will be more recycled rants. Go on now. Trot them out again. Or just call me a troll because that's always the Randian response to anyone who doesn't live in a vacuum.

 

[dblack]

Where is the newborn's liberty?

You don't understand the word.

The newborn never had a chance to learn about your Randian paradise. Your only response to that will be more recycled rants. Go on now. Trot them out again. Or just call me a troll because that's always the Randian response to anyone who doesn't live in a vacuum.

I'm just saying you don't understand what liberty is. You can only conceive of power.

 

[Arianrhod]

Where is the newborn's liberty?

You don't understand the word.

The newborn never had a chance to learn about your Randian paradise. Your only response to that will be more recycled rants. Go on now. Trot them out again. Or just call me a troll because that's always the Randian response to anyone who doesn't live in a vacuum.

I'm just saying you don't understand what liberty is. You can only conceive of power.

Then answer the question: Where is the dead newborn's "liberty"?

 

[dblack]

Where is the newborn's liberty?

You don't understand the word.

The newborn never had a chance to learn about your Randian paradise. Your only response to that will be more recycled rants. Go on now. Trot them out again. Or just call me a troll because that's always the Randian response to anyone who doesn't live in a vacuum.

I'm just saying you don't understand what liberty is. You can only conceive of power.

Then answer the question: Where is the dead newborn's "liberty"?

It's there. Perfectly intact. What you're concerned with is ability, not liberty. In your view, the role of government is to empower people, not to protect their liberty.

 

[Arianrhod]

Where is the newborn's liberty?

You don't understand the word.

The newborn never had a chance to learn about your Randian paradise. Your only response to that will be more recycled rants. Go on now. Trot them out again. Or just call me a troll because that's always the Randian response to anyone who doesn't live in a vacuum.

I'm just saying you don't understand what liberty is. You can only conceive of power.

Then answer the question: Where is the dead newborn's "liberty"?

It's there.

How so?

 

[dblack]

You don't understand the word.

The newborn never had a chance to learn about your Randian paradise. Your only response to that will be more recycled rants. Go on now. Trot them out again. Or just call me a troll because that's always the Randian response to anyone who doesn't live in a vacuum.

I'm just saying you don't understand what liberty is. You can only conceive of power.

Then answer the question: Where is the dead newborn's "liberty"?

It's there.

How so?

Liberty is the absence of restraint, not the ability to do something. This is what I mean when I say you, and others here (Vandalshandle, etc), don't understand what the word means. You equate liberty with empowerment but they're not the same thing. And a government that protects an individual's liberty is very different from a government that ensures their ability.

Regarding matters of life and death, it's the role of government to protect us from being killed by others, not to ensure that we never die.

 

[Arianrhod]

Liberty is the absence of restraint, not the ability to do something. This is what I mean when I say you, and others here (Vandalshandle, etc), don't understand what the word means. You equate liberty with empowerment but they're not the same thing. And a government that protects an individual's liberty to act is very different from a government that ensures their ability to act.

Regarding matters of life and death, it's the role of government to protect us from being killed by others, not to ensure that we never die.

Death is the ultimate restraint. And it's not "the government" that would be saving that child's life, but the medical profession. The restraint on them is the perception that they should work for free.

A better focus for your "protection of liberty" might be to ask yourself what the government is doing to protect you from some random stranger shooting you. His lawyer will argue his "Second Amendment right." The fact that his perceived right ends your liberty is of no interest to you at that point. Time to be proactive.

 

[dblack]

Liberty is the absence of restraint, not the ability to do something. This is what I mean when I say you, and others here (Vandalshandle, etc), don't understand what the word means. You equate liberty with empowerment but they're not the same thing. And a government that protects an individual's liberty to act is very different from a government that ensures their ability to act.

Regarding matters of life and death, it's the role of government to protect us from being killed by others, not to ensure that we never die.

Death is the ultimate restraint. And it's not "the government" that would be saving that child's life, but the medical profession. The restraint on them is the perception that they should work for free.

? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

Liberty is the freedom to act, or not, unhindered by others, not a guarantee that your actions will be successful.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Blackie seems to be a pure libertarian. I am sure that he objects equally to having to participate in Social Security, Medicare, and most taxes. There were a lot if libertarians around in the 1960's, except that they were called hippies. The movement lasted about 2 years before it all went south when they discovered that their utopia of self sufficient communes depended on society as a whole in order to exist. I do give them credit for actually trying to walk the walk, though. Today's libertarians don't do that. they just whine and *****, for the most part. As for ACA, the program is motivating people to buy insurance rather than to just walk into a hospital to get medical care for free that is actually paid for by those that have bought insurance and by our tax money, in the form of welfare. I worked for Charity Hospital in New Orleans, and 70% of out patients had no insurance. Their care was paid for by various state and federal subsidies.

 

[Arianrhod]

Liberty is the absence of restraint, not the ability to do something. This is what I mean when I say you, and others here (Vandalshandle, etc), don't understand what the word means. You equate liberty with empowerment but they're not the same thing. And a government that protects an individual's liberty to act is very different from a government that ensures their ability to act.

Regarding matters of life and death, it's the role of government to protect us from being killed by others, not to ensure that we never die.

Death is the ultimate restraint. And it's not "the government" that would be saving that child's life, but the medical profession. The restraint on them is the perception that they should work for free.

? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

Liberty is the freedom to act, or not, unhindered by others, not a guarantee that your actions will be successful.

I'll type slowly: THE NEWBORN WITH A HOLE IN ITS HEART DID NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING BUT DIE.

 

[dblack]

Liberty is the absence of restraint, not the ability to do something. This is what I mean when I say you, and others here (Vandalshandle, etc), don't understand what the word means. You equate liberty with empowerment but they're not the same thing. And a government that protects an individual's liberty to act is very different from a government that ensures their ability to act.

Regarding matters of life and death, it's the role of government to protect us from being killed by others, not to ensure that we never die.

Death is the ultimate restraint. And it's not "the government" that would be saving that child's life, but the medical profession. The restraint on them is the perception that they should work for free.

? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

Liberty is the freedom to act, or not, unhindered by others, not a guarantee that your actions will be successful.

I'll type slowly: THE NEWBORN WITH A HOLE IN ITS HEART DID NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING BUT DIE.

Repeating it, typing it slowly, or even all in caps, doesn't make your point of view any more coherent. Liberty is the absence of restraint from other humans. You have, apparently, misinterpreted that as the absence of any restraint whatsoever, include the harsh facts of reality.

In the name of honest debate, and accurate communication, we have to agree on the definitions of the words we're using. If we can't get there, we can't go much further.

We don't agree on what the word 'liberty' means. I think I can make a good case that your interpretation is the outlier, and is possibly even part of a deliberate, Orwellian attempt to influence politics by undermining the words we use. Maybe you think the same of my point of view. In any case, we can't even really argue a point if we don't agree on the language we're using.

 

[Arianrhod]

We don't agree on what the word 'liberty' means.

Well, we do agree on that much.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Liberty is the absence of restraint, not the ability to do something. This is what I mean when I say you, and others here (Vandalshandle, etc), don't understand what the word means. You equate liberty with empowerment but they're not the same thing. And a government that protects an individual's liberty to act is very different from a government that ensures their ability to act.

Regarding matters of life and death, it's the role of government to protect us from being killed by others, not to ensure that we never die.

Death is the ultimate restraint. And it's not "the government" that would be saving that child's life, but the medical profession. The restraint on them is the perception that they should work for free.

? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

Liberty is the freedom to act, or not, unhindered by others, not a guarantee that your actions will be successful.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sorry, Kosh, but you are going to have to come up with some thoughts of your own if you want to fence with me.

But, I really don't think that is going to happen.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

See how they claim things that they were and yet can not provide any proof of it!

Yes you are a far left drone.

You supported over 80% of Obama's policies

And yo are voting for Hilary!

Sorry the facts show that you are a liar, just like those you support in Obama and Clinton!

Not at all, Kosh. I supported 91% of Obama's policies. I don't have the slightest idea of where you came up with 80%. Confusing me with someone else, perhaps?

Well I can believe that as no republican now or then would support a single payer system controlled by the government!

Well, then, by golly, I assume that you will be writing a letter any day now telling Medicare the you don't want their insurance and to go to hell!

When they return all the money they've taken from my check....you bet.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I still crack up every time I hear the word...Obamacare....

Like Obama really cares ?????

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I don't. It's the old appeal to trade liberty for security. Over time the security erodes, but we don't the liberty back.

Liberty to watch your newborn baby die for lack of the money to repair a hole in the heart birth defect? I saw that time and time again over my 50 years. That is a strange sort of liberty that you revere.

Whose fault is that ?

Nobody. Because of ADA, everyone has an opportunity to buy insurance. If they do not have enough money, that is a separate problem.

And you are saying that wasn't the issue before ? With "enough" money, you could buy insurance even for a pre-existing condition. However, it probably made more sense just to save your money and use it on medical costs.

Don't get me wrong, the idea that insurance companies could somehow cancel a 20 year customer after taking their premiums offended me (it never happened to me or anyone I know. It was just spoken of as being a fact. If that didn't happen...I retract the comment). But the ACA didn't need to happen to fix that.

It was our government that let it happen (insurance has been regulated for a long time). Why could it not just stop it ?

No. You could not buy insurance with "enough money", before ACA. I was paid well as the VP of Underwriting And Compliance to make sure that did not happen.
And the reason that "our government let that happen", was because the Supreme Court had held that the feds did not regulate insurance. Only the States had the regulatory authority over insurance. Consequently, I had to comply with the laws of 50 states. One state, New York, was so regulatory happy, that health insurance companies set up separate companies to do business there, if at all. Since all insurance companies paid "premium taxes" to each state for all premiums collected in that state, we pretty much told them what laws to write that we would allow ourselves to live with. In fact, we worked jointly with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and drafted the laws for them. I, personally have attended their annual meetings.

ACA changed all that, and put in a layer of regulatory authority above the state level. However, don't think for a second that health insurance companies did not have a heavy hand in drafting the ACA law. We did, and made damn sure that the government did not become our competitor, like they did with Medicare.

I'll defer to your experience beyond what I have seen....

Which is people with pre-existing condtions getting insured.

I was able to get maternity insurance for my pregnant wife......those miserable insurance companies.

I have seen other cases. But that is limited. But I know it did happen.

However, you'd have a better view of that world.

All you wrote in your statement only lends to the fact that insurance government are one in the same.

 

[Vandalshandle]

A preexisting condition did not apply unless the insurance company can prove that the insured knew the condition existed.

Pre-existing conditions limitations were defined as condition occurring for 12 months before coverage became effective, and applied for 24 months if claims were incurred in the first 12 months, or a total of 12 months if no claims for the condition were incurred during the 12 months. Credit toward the PEL applied to the extent that the individual was continuously covered without interruption by the prior carrier, if the group policy replaced a prior policy.

All coverage for the individual could be denied based on unacceptable evidence of insurability. Evidence of insurability was required if the employee failed to apply for coverage of an eligible depended within 31 days of becoming eligible. EOI was required of any employees who failed to apply during the 31 days following the date the employee became a full time employee, usually defined as an employee regularly scheduled and working for at least 30 hours per week. Later, HMO's were required to have a 30 day "open enrollment" every year in which no EOI was required for late enrollees.

If, after insuring an otherwise eligible employee or dependent, if the insurance company determined that the applicant's EOI misrepresented the health status of an employee or dependent during the first 12 months of coverage, coverage could be rescinded and premiums returned. I did this often.

All of the above has been wiped out, and is illegal under ACA.