- Thread starter
- #41
IOW you cannot explain any of it. Not that it should surprise anyone.
You're dismissed.
Pre-existing conditions coverage
- Thread starter The Rabbi
- Start date
IOW you cannot explain any of it. Not that it should surprise anyone.
You're dismissed.
- Thread starter
- #42
That was not the purpose of the ACA. You fail again, "counselor." You're such a poseur I would bet more people have you on ignore than Truthmatters.
- Thread starter
- #43
No, you're not.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
I think what you mean is
since you don't disagree with the mandate enough to fight it legally,
it doesn't matter to YOU if you have to change it through the state or federal govt.
to YOU it's "all the same" if you aren't investing your own resources trying to reform the ACA.
But for the people you are relying on who take responsibility for changing the mandate,
YES, it makes a HUGE difference trying to change it on a state or federal level.
It is easier to go through our state to change a state mandate,
which only affects our state.
For this federal mandate, going through Congress and SC is inaccessible.
And this policy affects ALL people in ALL states.
So the demand is even greater, across all 50 states with taxpayers opposed,
putting more burden on the central avenues for petitioning.
The majority of reps for all 50 states would have to agree to a change
rather than just the reps within the same state if this were on a state level.
Huge difference in due process and lack of representation.
That is why the Constitution leaves duties not given to federal govt
to the States or to the People so we can manage our affairs LOCALLY.
to AVOID the abuse of federal govt to suppress individual civil liberties and representation.
since you don't disagree with the mandate enough to fight it legally,
it doesn't matter to YOU if you have to change it through the state or federal govt.
to YOU it's "all the same" if you aren't investing your own resources trying to reform the ACA.
But for the people you are relying on who take responsibility for changing the mandate,
YES, it makes a HUGE difference trying to change it on a state or federal level.
It is easier to go through our state to change a state mandate,
which only affects our state.
For this federal mandate, going through Congress and SC is inaccessible.
And this policy affects ALL people in ALL states.
So the demand is even greater, across all 50 states with taxpayers opposed,
putting more burden on the central avenues for petitioning.
The majority of reps for all 50 states would have to agree to a change
rather than just the reps within the same state if this were on a state level.
Huge difference in due process and lack of representation.
That is why the Constitution leaves duties not given to federal govt
to the States or to the People so we can manage our affairs LOCALLY.
to AVOID the abuse of federal govt to suppress individual civil liberties and representation.
- Thread starter
- #45
OK, since few thought to tackle the questions, here we go:
There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with pre-existing conditions. Provided they could charge appropriately for it. Insurance is about pricing risk. Period. People with PEC pose more risk. Ergo they should be more expensive to insure. I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk. Ergo, they wouldn't issue policies to people who had PEC.
The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free. It involves greater risk that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.
So why not get rid of any mandate to cover anything and allow insurers to price policies as they see fit?
There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with pre-existing conditions. Provided they could charge appropriately for it. Insurance is about pricing risk. Period. People with PEC pose more risk. Ergo they should be more expensive to insure. I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk. Ergo, they wouldn't issue policies to people who had PEC.
The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free. It involves greater risk that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.
So why not get rid of any mandate to cover anything and allow insurers to price policies as they see fit?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
1. you are not forced to buy a car, therefore not forced to buy insurance if you don't need it
2. you are not forced to buy insurance in advance of buying a car and needing it later
3. insurance is required to cover liability for damage you cause to OTHER people's cars.
You are NOT required to buy insurance to cover replacing your own car which is OPTIONAL.
(except where your loan requires full coverage on new cars)
4. at least one state offers the option of showing "proof of ability to pay" in lieu of buying insurance
5. you are not being forced by federal govt to buy insurance or "pay a fine to the IRS"
So why can't the mandate allow people "not to be fined" if we agree to pay for our own health care another way besides buying insurance? why is that a crime to be penalized?
Last edited:
bendog
Diamond Member
Because, if you choose not to drive, you won't run anyone over. If you choose not to buy HC, and get hit by a car (or get cancer) you'll present yourself at a local ER and shove your unpaid bills on people who did the right thing by having HC insurance.
Smilebong
Gold Member
Because Democrats don't believe that you are smart enough to handle yourself. Only they are. And that control freak mentality has gone straight to the top.
boilermaker55
Gold Member
- Aug 12, 2011
- 6,960
- 798
- 155
This might be the wrong thing for someone to say but why do you waste time on trying to have any type of real intelligent discussion with someone like the OP or the ones that start most of their responses with and insult.
It is so revealing of their level of maturity.
I know they are frustrating but they have no real ability to challenge any statements with anything really factual.
Not all are like this but those like this OP.
It is so revealing of their level of maturity.
I know they are frustrating but they have no real ability to challenge any statements with anything really factual.
Not all are like this but those like this OP.
boilermaker55
Gold Member
- Aug 12, 2011
- 6,960
- 798
- 155
- Thread starter
- #51
Butt-hurt much?
We get it that you are not sophisticated or informed enough to take part in this discussion. What we don't get it why you have to interject your butt hurt into it.
kiwiman127
Comfortably Moderate
Your right,,,,if you live in New Hampshire.
The remaining 49 states plus DC require car insurance.
Car Insurance Requirements by State - Cars.com
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
I wasn't aware that ERs give ongoing oncology treatment. ERs will still give emergency care to patients despite obamacare.
- Thread starter
- #54
The federal government has no, zero, requirement for car insurance. Even though car insurance is sold across state lines and people drive across state lines for commerce every day.
Which was the point. MA has a mandate. They are welcome to it. I don't argue it is unconstitutional, as it plainly is. It is seriously bad policy, buit that's their problem, not mine.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
There is a difference between state and local taxes that people can vote on and change locally. Versus federal taxation that requires Constitutional representation.
Most of the major conflicts with ACA would be eliminated by addressing health care
on a state and local level, and not make it a federal issue which is too complex.
If people cannot agree on making reforms on a state level, because of "political beliefs" about states rights, people's right to choose, and role of federal govt,
that is where I see addressing and separating issues by Party.
Going through federal govt is disastrous because of people's conflicting BELIEFS.
That is not the duty or design of federal govt to mediate BELIEFS;
we would be lucky to resolve this through States but you can see the mess over
gay marriage and business discrimination suits that isn't being resolved there either.
So now I think the Parties are the best bet for separating these conflicts
into workable solutions, since that is what is causing the problems in the first place:
people's political BELIEFS being imposed or excluded instead of equal Constitutional inclusion.
boilermaker55
Gold Member
- Aug 12, 2011
- 6,960
- 798
- 155
If you see the response that was posted by whom I was talking you will see exactly what the typical response is.
I rest my case your Honor.
Nothing more be said.
I rest my case your Honor.
Nothing more be said.
- Thread starter
- #57
Does that mean you'll butt out of a conversation you are obviously ill suited to? Please?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
What if you agree to pay your own bills and not impose on others?
Why this presumption of guilt before innocence,
without any due process to prove no intent to pay?
if people were SO concerned about not dumping costs on others,
why not charge criminals who ARE convicted for crimes and damages
and make them pay for prisons and hospital costs that taxpayers cover?
why not refund THAT money first, and use THAT to pay for hospitals and medical care for lawabiding
citizens instead of only paying for criminals?
Why are those CONVICTED of crimes given free rides
while charging LAW ABIDING taxpayers just because they are easier to collect from?
Last edited:
bendog
Diamond Member
Rational? You want rational? (-:
It's a good question, and my net nanny won't let me see the OP. Tom Coburn and some other non-moonbats in the gop suggesting much the same, but the maj of the party preferred the do nothing approach.
For people denied coverage by private insurors, and who didn't have employer sponsored, the govt itself could have set up a funding pool. An insurer could be "hired," or perhaps more rationally, we'd just allow these folks to early enroll in medicare and pay for them via tax dollars.
That was pretty much the idea behind mandating just catastrophic coverage. The vast maj of costs come from late end care and really bad chronic stuff. Relatively speaking, wellness care is cheap.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Boiler: As long as there is content to the subject brought up,
and to the objections or defenses, even if poorly presented as insults,
there is still an opportunity for well meaning and well spoken people to share ideas on it.
Why not make the most of what we are given,
and try to bring out the better insights in each other that may offer solutions?
and to the objections or defenses, even if poorly presented as insults,
there is still an opportunity for well meaning and well spoken people to share ideas on it.
Why not make the most of what we are given,
and try to bring out the better insights in each other that may offer solutions?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
AI is exhausting workers so much, researchers have dubbed the condition ‘AI brain fry’- Started by GavanPeacefan
- Replies: 0
-
Shomer Yisrael, hero guard who saved the 140 kids from the Islamic fascist [Ayman Mohamad Ghazali]- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 3
-
-
