Pre-existing conditions coverage

[M14 Shooter]

Except that it isn't - as evidenced by your inability to answer it.

It's a "Why are we here" question. Congress has never been required to do only what the Constitution makes direct reference to....

I see you have not read Amendment X - powers not delegated to to e federal government lie elsewhere.
So... cite the clause.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not sure how this answers my question.

The Society you live in has its own Morality, which it imposes.

Ok... and how does that answer my question?
Who is -anyone- to impose their version morality on others?

Unless you live under a King, that isn't happening. If it is, he's the bloody king, or your father and you live under his roof? That passes the test as well even if you call him Mom.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a "Why are we here" question. Congress has never been required to do only what the Constitution makes direct reference to....

I see you have not read Amendment X - powers not delegated to to e federal government lie elsewhere.
So... cite the clause.

I don't need to, and neither does anyone else. The reality is they have the power. See how that works?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Society you live in has its own Morality, which it imposes.

Ok... and how does that answer my question?
Who is -anyone- to impose their version morality on others?

Unless you live under a King, that isn't happening.

Forcing the young and healthy to be responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick, bases on the idea that it is the right thing to do, is, inarguably, forcing a version morality on others.
And so, your response is not only incorrect, it does not answer my question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see you have not read Amendment X - powers not delegated to to e federal government lie elsewhere.
So... cite the clause.

I don't need to, and neither does anyone else. The reality is they have the power. See how that works?

Yes - I see you have neither the capacity nor the inclination to hold an honest discussion on this issue.
Run along - I have no time for your kind.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ok... and how does that answer my question?
Who is -anyone- to impose their version morality on others?

Unless you live under a King, that isn't happening.

Forcing the young and healthy to be responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick, bases on the idea that it is the right thing to do, is, inarguably, forcing a version morality on others.
And so, your response is not only incorrect, it does not answer ny question.

That is not being forced upon you, that is the morality of the society in which you live. It's a package deal. We don't ask and you don't get a vote, usually.

Your question is akin to the question what right do you have to tell me how fast I can drive? And the answer is the only right required, by law we can do so.

 

[bluesman]

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution...

The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?

That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.

This is what Republican Justice John Roberts said:

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't need to, and neither does anyone else. The reality is they have the power. See how that works?

Yes - I see you have neither the capacity nor the inclination to hold an honest discussion on this issue.
Run along - I have no time for your kind.

I'm sure that your mother said at least a few times just do it please, meaning you don't understand but I'm not asking or debating this. Same thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?

That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.

Odd. I donlt see anything in the ruling that cites the clause I seek.
Cite please.

 

[chikenwing]

Somehow, liberals think that you can charge next to nothing and give people insurance coverage that will pay for extremely expensive surgeries and sicknesses.

The problem is that overall, the sick people will buy that insurance. The healthy young people will not. So the sick people are the only ones paying premiums. And they are the ones collecting all the benefits and the cost has to increase. Otherwise, the Insurance companies cannot make money. That is what they are in business for, to make money. If I owned a business and the governemnt made me operate it so that I lost money, I would close up shop.

again, that's why there is a mandate... .to spread the cost among everyone, including young, healthy people.

perhaps you should stick with that bong.

Only when you hand it over!young people ,those that get to stay on moms and dads policy untill 26?? those young people.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is what Republican Justice John Roberts said:

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

A bit of a stretch but not a bad one. Pay me now or pay me later. One way or another, everyone into the pool and pay up. That will do, for now.

 

[bluesman]

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution...

The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?

It is a violation of forum rules to edit a post and change the context. It is also a sign that the person doing it is a mental midget.

Here is my un-doctored post:

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution, Congress passed the law and the president signed it. The people who opposed the law challenged it and the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying it was constitutional. With you self proclaimed beyond "stage one" thinking, you should be able to figure out that the general idea behind the "Affordable Care Act" is to make healthcare "affordable". The higher risk policies are not as "affordable".

See, I wasn't saying it was in the constitution. Therefore you attempt to say I did and then reply with a right wing talking point is just low level shit. Please stop pestering me.

Do not edit my posts in the future.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

The biggest problem with insurance companies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions was the fact that in many cases, those conditions existed before the person was ever able to purchase insurance. In some cases such as my own, I was denied coverage after having to move to another state, even though I had paid for insurance for all my life. The reason for mandating coverage is so that everyone is in the pool and pays into that pool. Saying that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions if they have never paid in puts a strain on everyone who has been paying in. That is why the mandate is necessary. Otherwise too many people would just wait until they got sick. Of course it's not that easy. Even now, you must purchase a policy within a given time frame pretty much like open enrollment with your employer. If you miss the open enrollment period, you cannot get a policy until the following year, so if you get cancer or something goes wrong during that time, you will be without coverage.

 

[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.

The biggest problem with insurance companies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions was the fact that in many cases, those conditions existed before the person was ever able to purchase insurance. In some cases such as my own, I was denied coverage after having to move to another state, even though I had paid for insurance for all my life. The reason for mandating coverage is so that everyone is in the pool and pays into that pool. Saying that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions if they have never paid in puts a strain on everyone who has been paying in. That is why the mandate is necessary. Otherwise too many people would just wait until they got sick. Of course it's not that easy. Even now, you must purchase a policy within a given time frame pretty much like open enrollment with your employer. If you miss the open enrollment period, you cannot get a policy until the following year, so if you get cancer or something goes wrong during that time, you will be without coverage.

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

 

[Bfgrn]

Somehow, liberals think that you can charge next to nothing and give people insurance coverage that will pay for extremely expensive surgeries and sicknesses.

The problem is that overall, the sick people will buy that insurance. The healthy young people will not. So the sick people are the only ones paying premiums. And they are the ones collecting all the benefits and the cost has to increase. Otherwise, the Insurance companies cannot make money. That is what they are in business for, to make money. If I owned a business and the governemnt made me operate it so that I lost money, I would close up shop.

again, that's why there is a mandate... .to spread the cost among everyone, including young, healthy people.

Hey there!
Take a break from scrubbing your urinal and answer me this:
By what sound argument are the young and healthy responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick?

Because the young and healthy don't remain the young and healthy forever. They will become the old and sick.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

The biggest problem with insurance companies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions was the fact that in many cases, those conditions existed before the person was ever able to purchase insurance. In some cases such as my own, I was denied coverage after having to move to another state, even though I had paid for insurance for all my life. The reason for mandating coverage is so that everyone is in the pool and pays into that pool. Saying that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions if they have never paid in puts a strain on everyone who has been paying in. That is why the mandate is necessary. Otherwise too many people would just wait until they got sick. Of course it's not that easy. Even now, you must purchase a policy within a given time frame pretty much like open enrollment with your employer. If you miss the open enrollment period, you cannot get a policy until the following year, so if you get cancer or something goes wrong during that time, you will be without coverage.

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

They can't do that anymore. Open enrollment is only during a certain time, if you don't get it then you have to wait until next enrollment.

eta: apparently you can buy short term insurance between enrollment periods. They are not (un)aca compliant, do not cover the 10 essentials. Don't know if they cover pe's. You can still get whacked with the penalty tax.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?

It is a violation of forum rules to edit a post and change the context. It is also a sign that the person doing it is a mental midget.
Here is my un-doctored post:

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution, Congress passed the law and the president signed it. The people who opposed the law challenged it and the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying it was constitutional. With you self proclaimed beyond "stage one" thinking, you should be able to figure out that the general idea behind the "Affordable Care Act" is to make healthcare "affordable". The higher risk policies are not as "affordable".

See, I wasn't saying it was in the constitution.

Translation:
You know the power to enact the legislation in question isn't in the constitution, "outlined" or otherwise, and you don't want to be forced to admit it.
Too bad for you. You know your claim is baseslees and you know there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The biggest problem with insurance companies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions was the fact that in many cases, those conditions existed before the person was ever able to purchase insurance. In some cases such as my own, I was denied coverage after having to move to another state, even though I had paid for insurance for all my life. The reason for mandating coverage is so that everyone is in the pool and pays into that pool. Saying that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions if they have never paid in puts a strain on everyone who has been paying in. That is why the mandate is necessary. Otherwise too many people would just wait until they got sick. Of course it's not that easy. Even now, you must purchase a policy within a given time frame pretty much like open enrollment with your employer. If you miss the open enrollment period, you cannot get a policy until the following year, so if you get cancer or something goes wrong during that time, you will be without coverage.

Please present a sound argument as to why state should force the young and healthy to subsidize the health care costs of the old and sick, and/or as to why the state sholuld force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Please present a sound argument as to why state should force the young and healthy to subsidize the health care costs of the old and sick, and/or as to why the state sholuld force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

You won't accept any so why bother asking? You are a selfish child, we get it.

 

[bluesman]

That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.

Odd. I donlt see anything in the ruling that cites the clause I seek.
Cite please.

You edited out the answer to the question:


That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.

This is what Republican Justice John Roberts said:

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.