Pre-existing conditions coverage

[The Rabbi]

So your "rightist" plan is to deny them coverage and then let them show up at the emergency room and get free treatment? Well I guess if it is "free" then that is a better deal. But since you are taking it beyond "stage one", then I guess we could put armed guards at the emergency rooms to make sure that the uninsured people don't get in and they can go off and die in private.

What turnip truck did you fall off of again? On your head? At 60MPH? Only someone totally brain damaged would post crap like that. You dont have the slightest ******* clue what's being discussed. Go back and post about something you have experience with. Like watermelon and VD.

The break it down Einstein. How does the free treatment for the uninsured work? They go to the emergency room..., and then what?

This thread is about pre-existing conditions, genius. You want to debate health care for the indigent, start another thread. I realize it's near and dear to you because you are one Ripple away from cirrhosis, but go somewhere else.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

perhaps you lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA... wait... not PERHAPS... you do lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA....

the point of the MANDATE is to make covering pre-existing conditions, etc, affordable for the insurance companies.

you're welcome.


no wonder no one listens to what you have to say.

Wrong, the reason for the mandate is they knew no one in their right mind would sign up without being forced to.

Your welcome

Hm, looks like you just murked her, Grampa. I'd get a doctor to check it out btw.

 

[bluesman]

What turnip truck did you fall off of again? On your head? At 60MPH? Only someone totally brain damaged would post crap like that. You dont have the slightest ******* clue what's being discussed. Go back and post about something you have experience with. Like watermelon and VD.

The break it down Einstein. How does the free treatment for the uninsured work? They go to the emergency room..., and then what?

This thread is about pre-existing conditions, genius. You want to debate health care for the indigent, start another thread. I realize it's near and dear to you because you are one Ripple away from cirrhosis, but go somewhere else.

First of all thanks for the negative rep and calling me a "dunce".

Latest Reputation Received
Thread Date Posted By Comment
Pre-existing conditions... 04-03-2014 06:25 PM The Rabbi dunce

Wait a minute now. In the Op you specifically said:

...I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean....

So let's work through this and figure out what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Now let's see. If they get denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, then after that what happens then? Will they be insured or uninsured? I know it is a real brain twister but since you are going beyond "stage one", go ahead and fire up that brain of yours and answer the question I asked:

What happens when the uninsured show up at the emergency room for "free" treatment? Who pays for that?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe, vying for Lo-Lo Of The Year with his posts.
We lead the world in the most important measures.
If insurance companies called every illness pre-existing they would never pay out a claim. And no one would ever buy health insurance.
Health care is never free. No country thinks it is either. Every country, and every state, that has adopted some aspect of "free"health care has had to amend it or abolish it as costs skyrocket. Because when you make something free people use more of it.

Actually, every other industrialized country has universal health care. Germany has had it since 1888.

They spend less.
They live longer
Less of their babies die.
Illness is not a cause of bankruptcy.

Of course it isn't "Free". It has to be paid for by taxes and adminstered responsibly.

Which means nine-figure salaries and dividends to investors are out. Paying a fair market price for services are in.

It's really kind of simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

The break it down Einstein. How does the free treatment for the uninsured work? They go to the emergency room..., and then what?

This thread is about pre-existing conditions, genius. You want to debate health care for the indigent, start another thread. I realize it's near and dear to you because you are one Ripple away from cirrhosis, but go somewhere else.

First of all thanks for the negative rep and calling me a "dunce".

Latest Reputation Received
Thread Date Posted By Comment
Pre-existing conditions... 04-03-2014 06:25 PM The Rabbi dunce

Wait a minute now. In the Op you specifically said:

...I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean....

So let's work through this and figure out what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Now let's see. If they get denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, then after that what happens then? Will they be insured or uninsured? I know it is a real brain twister but since you are going beyond "stage one", go ahead and fire up that brain of yours and answer the question I asked:

What happens when the uninsured show up at the emergency room for "free" treatment? Who pays for that?

You are truly a dunce and then some.
Why do insurers turn down people with PE conditions to begin with? Don't think too hard about it. Not that there's a lot of danger of that happening.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

Joe, vying for Lo-Lo Of The Year with his posts.
We lead the world in the most important measures.
If insurance companies called every illness pre-existing they would never pay out a claim. And no one would ever buy health insurance.
Health care is never free. No country thinks it is either. Every country, and every state, that has adopted some aspect of "free"health care has had to amend it or abolish it as costs skyrocket. Because when you make something free people use more of it.

Actually, every other industrialized country has universal health care. Germany has had it since 1888.

They spend less.
They live longer
Less of their babies die.
Illness is not a cause of bankruptcy.

Of course it isn't "Free". It has to be paid for by taxes and adminstered responsibly.

Which means nine-figure salaries and dividends to investors are out. Paying a fair market price for services are in.

It's really kind of simple.

Tell me about it, you Lo-Lo ignorant piece of crap.
Health care reform - Bundesgesundheitsministerium

 

[bluesman]

This thread is about pre-existing conditions, genius. You want to debate health care for the indigent, start another thread. I realize it's near and dear to you because you are one Ripple away from cirrhosis, but go somewhere else.

First of all thanks for the negative rep and calling me a "dunce".




Wait a minute now. In the Op you specifically said:

...I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean....

So let's work through this and figure out what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Now let's see. If they get denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, then after that what happens then? Will they be insured or uninsured? I know it is a real brain twister but since you are going beyond "stage one", go ahead and fire up that brain of yours and answer the question I asked:

What happens when the uninsured show up at the emergency room for "free" treatment? Who pays for that?

You are truly a dunce and then some.
Why do insurers turn down people with PE conditions to begin with? Don't think too hard about it. Not that there's a lot of danger of that happening.

So after calling me a dunce and claiming the Op you were going beyond "stage one" thinking, now you are stumped and going to answer with a dodge? Oh no. When you brag about how smart you are the you have to do better than that.

Please take your thinking up to whatever "stage" you need to and explain who is going to pay for the emergency room treatment for the people who are uninsured because they were denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

If you cant answer then question directly above then you are officially stumped ("don't have a clue")

 

[The Rabbi]

First of all thanks for the negative rep and calling me a "dunce".




Wait a minute now. In the Op you specifically said:




So let's work through this and figure out what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Now let's see. If they get denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, then after that what happens then? Will they be insured or uninsured? I know it is a real brain twister but since you are going beyond "stage one", go ahead and fire up that brain of yours and answer the question I asked:

What happens when the uninsured show up at the emergency room for "free" treatment? Who pays for that?

You are truly a dunce and then some.
Why do insurers turn down people with PE conditions to begin with? Don't think too hard about it. Not that there's a lot of danger of that happening.

So after calling me a dunce and claiming the Op you were going beyond "stage one" thinking, now you are stumped and going to answer with a dodge? Oh no. When you brag about how smart you are the you have to do better than that.

Please take your thinking up to whatever "stage" you need to and explain who is going to pay for the emergency room treatment for the people who are uninsured because they were denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

If you cant answer then question directly above then you are officially stumped ("don't have a clue")

OK, phew. We dodged a bullet there. I thought maybe you would take the bait and think beyond Stage One. But you didnt. You changed the subject and then dodged and then accused me of doing just what you did.
You want to discuss indigent care, go right ahead. Somewhere else. Most people who go to the ER have health insurance, btw.

 

[bluesman]

You are truly a dunce and then some.
Why do insurers turn down people with PE conditions to begin with? Don't think too hard about it. Not that there's a lot of danger of that happening.

So after calling me a dunce and claiming the Op you were going beyond "stage one" thinking, now you are stumped and going to answer with a dodge? Oh no. When you brag about how smart you are the you have to do better than that.

Please take your thinking up to whatever "stage" you need to and explain who is going to pay for the emergency room treatment for the people who are uninsured because they were denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

If you cant answer then question directly above then you are officially stumped ("don't have a clue")

OK, phew. We dodged a bullet there. I thought maybe you would take the bait and think beyond Stage One. But you didnt. You changed the subject and then dodged and then accused me of doing just what you did.
You want to discuss indigent care, go right ahead. Somewhere else. Most people who go to the ER have health insurance, btw.

Oh, then what happens to the people with pre-existing conditions after they get denied coverage and as a result remain uninsured? That is the topic of the thread. Are you really going to dodge your own topic? That is monumentally weak.

 

[The Rabbi]

So after calling me a dunce and claiming the Op you were going beyond "stage one" thinking, now you are stumped and going to answer with a dodge? Oh no. When you brag about how smart you are the you have to do better than that.

Please take your thinking up to whatever "stage" you need to and explain who is going to pay for the emergency room treatment for the people who are uninsured because they were denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

If you cant answer then question directly above then you are officially stumped ("don't have a clue")

OK, phew. We dodged a bullet there. I thought maybe you would take the bait and think beyond Stage One. But you didnt. You changed the subject and then dodged and then accused me of doing just what you did.
You want to discuss indigent care, go right ahead. Somewhere else. Most people who go to the ER have health insurance, btw.

Oh, then what happens to the people with pre-existing conditions after they get denied coverage and are uninsured? That is the topic of the thread. Are you really going to dodge your own topic? That is monumentally weak.

You take exception to being called stupid and then prove you are stupid. The topic of this thread is not what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Go back and read the OP.
Now, I realize that your intelligence is sub par. I know this because you are going to read the OP and come back and claim that what you say is the topic. This is because you cannot read a sentence, much less a paragraph, and draw appropriate inferences from it. You think because it contains the words "insurance" "pre-existing" "conditions" then you are right on topic.
Let's see how stupid you can prove yourself to be.

 

[bluesman]

OK, phew. We dodged a bullet there. I thought maybe you would take the bait and think beyond Stage One. But you didnt. You changed the subject and then dodged and then accused me of doing just what you did.
You want to discuss indigent care, go right ahead. Somewhere else. Most people who go to the ER have health insurance, btw.

Oh, then what happens to the people with pre-existing conditions after they get denied coverage and are uninsured? That is the topic of the thread. Are you really going to dodge your own topic? That is monumentally weak.

You take exception to being called stupid and then prove you are stupid. The topic of this thread is not what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Go back and read the OP.
Now, I realize that your intelligence is sub par. I know this because you are going to read the OP and come back and claim that what you say is the topic. This is because you cannot read a sentence, much less a paragraph, and draw appropriate inferences from it. You think because it contains the words "insurance" "pre-existing" "conditions" then you are right on topic.
Let's see how stupid you can prove yourself to be.

Now you are really dumbing it down:

Let's take a look at your Op:

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

You asked the question about who pays when they do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

I don't know what "stage" of question this is for you but you have now dodged it a couple of times.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh, then what happens to the people with pre-existing conditions after they get denied coverage and are uninsured? That is the topic of the thread. Are you really going to dodge your own topic? That is monumentally weak.

You take exception to being called stupid and then prove you are stupid. The topic of this thread is not what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Go back and read the OP.
Now, I realize that your intelligence is sub par. I know this because you are going to read the OP and come back and claim that what you say is the topic. This is because you cannot read a sentence, much less a paragraph, and draw appropriate inferences from it. You think because it contains the words "insurance" "pre-existing" "conditions" then you are right on topic.
Let's see how stupid you can prove yourself to be.

Now you are really dumbing it down:

Let's take a look at your Op:

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

You asked the question about who pays when they do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

I don't know what "stage" of question this is for you but you have now dodged it a couple of times.

You never answered HIS question. Who pays for those with pre-existing conditions when insurance companies must cover them? Pay attention to what was passed in the damn law and answer the question.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, then what happens to the people with pre-existing conditions after they get denied coverage and are uninsured? That is the topic of the thread. Are you really going to dodge your own topic? That is monumentally weak.

You take exception to being called stupid and then prove you are stupid. The topic of this thread is not what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Go back and read the OP.
Now, I realize that your intelligence is sub par. I know this because you are going to read the OP and come back and claim that what you say is the topic. This is because you cannot read a sentence, much less a paragraph, and draw appropriate inferences from it. You think because it contains the words "insurance" "pre-existing" "conditions" then you are right on topic.
Let's see how stupid you can prove yourself to be.

Now you are really dumbing it down:

Let's take a look at your Op:

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

You asked the question about who pays when they do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

I don't know what "stage" of question this is for you but you have now dodged it a couple of times.

Damn did I call it or what? You are unable to read a sentence and draw reasonable conclusions from it. You are literally too stupid to debate.

 

[The Rabbi]

You never answered HIS question. Who pays for those with pre-existing conditions when insurance companies must cover them? Pay attention to what was passed in the damn law and answer the question.

He can't. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate. This is the problem with people who have substandard intelligence: they cannot read something and draw reasonable conclusions about it. I see it here often. Charles Murray discusses this in Real Education. You take someone with sub par intelligence and send him to college and enroll him in an economics course. Since he cannot read and draw reasonable conclusions not only will he not learn about economics. What he does learn will be wrong. That is what we see here. Bluesman sees the words uninsured, health insurance, pre-existing conditions and they mean what he wants them to mean to proceed down the well worn path of "The GOP just wants to let uninsured people die." It is not only untrue, it is irrelevant to this discussion. But it is what he knows so he wants to rehearse it yet again.

 

[Bfgrn]

You never answered HIS question. Who pays for those with pre-existing conditions when insurance companies must cover them? Pay attention to what was passed in the damn law and answer the question.

He can't. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate. This is the problem with people who have substandard intelligence: they cannot read something and draw reasonable conclusions about it. I see it here often. Charles Murray discusses this in Real Education. You take someone with sub par intelligence and send him to college and enroll him in an economics course. Since he cannot read and draw reasonable conclusions not only will he not learn about economics. What he does learn will be wrong. That is what we see here. Bluesman sees the words uninsured, health insurance, pre-existing conditions and they mean what he wants them to mean to proceed down the well worn path of "The GOP just wants to let uninsured people die." It is not only untrue, it is irrelevant to this discussion. But it is what he knows so he wants to rehearse it yet again.

It is VERY relevant and is the very core of why conservatism is a cancer on our nation. Why is it that the conservative solution to EVERY SINGLE issue requires some group of people to just evaporate?

Old Harry S. Truman nailed you and your ilk back in 1948...and that was when the GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

 

[The Rabbi]

You never answered HIS question. Who pays for those with pre-existing conditions when insurance companies must cover them? Pay attention to what was passed in the damn law and answer the question.

He can't. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate. This is the problem with people who have substandard intelligence: they cannot read something and draw reasonable conclusions about it. I see it here often. Charles Murray discusses this in Real Education. You take someone with sub par intelligence and send him to college and enroll him in an economics course. Since he cannot read and draw reasonable conclusions not only will he not learn about economics. What he does learn will be wrong. That is what we see here. Bluesman sees the words uninsured, health insurance, pre-existing conditions and they mean what he wants them to mean to proceed down the well worn path of "The GOP just wants to let uninsured people die." It is not only untrue, it is irrelevant to this discussion. But it is what he knows so he wants to rehearse it yet again.

It is VERY relevant and is the very core of why conservatism is a cancer on our nation. Why is it that the conservative solution to EVERY SINGLE issue requires some group of people to just evaporate?

Old Harry S. Truman nailed you and your ilk back in 1948...and that was when the GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

I write "subpar intelligence" and you show up posting to prove my point. Not only is your post off-topic, it is even off topic to the digression from Blueshit. Congratulations!

 

[Bfgrn]

He can't. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate. This is the problem with people who have substandard intelligence: they cannot read something and draw reasonable conclusions about it. I see it here often. Charles Murray discusses this in Real Education. You take someone with sub par intelligence and send him to college and enroll him in an economics course. Since he cannot read and draw reasonable conclusions not only will he not learn about economics. What he does learn will be wrong. That is what we see here. Bluesman sees the words uninsured, health insurance, pre-existing conditions and they mean what he wants them to mean to proceed down the well worn path of "The GOP just wants to let uninsured people die." It is not only untrue, it is irrelevant to this discussion. But it is what he knows so he wants to rehearse it yet again.

It is VERY relevant and is the very core of why conservatism is a cancer on our nation. Why is it that the conservative solution to EVERY SINGLE issue requires some group of people to just evaporate?

Old Harry S. Truman nailed you and your ilk back in 1948...and that was when the GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

I write "subpar intelligence" and you show up posting to prove my point. Not only is your post off-topic, it is even off topic to the digression from Blueshit. Congratulations!

You right wing turds not only require groups of people to evaporate, you require FACTS to be considered 'off topic'.

It is a FACT that people with preexisting conditions who can't get insurance, or afford exorbitant premiums because of it WILL show up at a hospital ER. It is the core reason CONSERVATIVES created the individual mandate.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is VERY relevant and is the very core of why conservatism is a cancer on our nation. Why is it that the conservative solution to EVERY SINGLE issue requires some group of people to just evaporate?

Old Harry S. Truman nailed you and your ilk back in 1948...and that was when the GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

I write "subpar intelligence" and you show up posting to prove my point. Not only is your post off-topic, it is even off topic to the digression from Blueshit. Congratulations!

You right wing turds not only require groups of people to evaporate, you require FACTS to be considered 'off topic'.

It is a FACT that people with preexisting conditions who can't get insurance, or afford exorbitant premiums because of it WILL show up at a hospital ER. It is the core reason CONSERVATIVES created the individual mandate.

It's a fact that deer and cows both eat grass but deer excrete pellets and cows piles of dung. And it is as relevant to this discussion as any point you think you're making.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It is VERY relevant and is the very core of why conservatism is a cancer on our nation. Why is it that the conservative solution to EVERY SINGLE issue requires some group of people to just evaporate?

Old Harry S. Truman nailed you and your ilk back in 1948...and that was when the GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

I write "subpar intelligence" and you show up posting to prove my point. Not only is your post off-topic, it is even off topic to the digression from Blueshit. Congratulations!

You right wing turds not only require groups of people to evaporate, you require FACTS to be considered 'off topic'.

It is a FACT that people with preexisting conditions who can't get insurance, or afford exorbitant premiums because of it WILL show up at a hospital ER. It is the core reason CONSERVATIVES created the individual mandate.

You didn't answer my question earlier and you're not answering Rabbi's question now.

Who pays for those with pre-existing conditions when insurance companies must cover them?

 

[bluesman]

You take exception to being called stupid and then prove you are stupid. The topic of this thread is not what happens to people with pre-existing conditions. Go back and read the OP.
Now, I realize that your intelligence is sub par. I know this because you are going to read the OP and come back and claim that what you say is the topic. This is because you cannot read a sentence, much less a paragraph, and draw appropriate inferences from it. You think because it contains the words "insurance" "pre-existing" "conditions" then you are right on topic.
Let's see how stupid you can prove yourself to be.

Now you are really dumbing it down:

Let's take a look at your Op:

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

You asked the question about who pays when they do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

I don't know what "stage" of question this is for you but you have now dodged it a couple of times.

Damn did I call it or what? You are unable to read a sentence and draw reasonable conclusions from it. You are literally too stupid to debate.

That's right. When an ideologue get stumped then they just respond with personal attacks. However, a personal attack is another way of checking out of the debate and declaring surrender.

Seems like you can only defend the question you asked in your Op when it is in a right wing ideological vacuum.

You asked the question about who pays when people with pre-existing conditions do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?