Republicans Lie All the Time, About Everything:

[hjmick]

I'm having an affair with Kate Winslet.

You too?

 

[Article 15]

How do you intend upon driving prices down, when your policy can so clearly be seen as one that would drive costs up?

How do you expect your coverage to be less expensive --as a low risk taking individual-- if you have to pay for the medical expenses of a chain-smoking, Whopper-gobbling, video game playing , couch-surfing loser, who now expects you to absorb the costs for his coronary bypass?

Not....Gonna...Happen....Bubba.

Like who? Are you referring to people with preexisting conditions here?

Yes...Who do you think I was talking about?

What makes the stupid pre-existing conditions mandate any different from waiting until you have a wreck to purchase auto collision coverage, or waiting until your house is in fire to buy homeowners insurance?

Then, how is such a nonsensical mandate supposed to make anything cheaper for anyone, except for those who wait until they need the "insurance" to buy it.

Would the premiums for higher risk people with preexisting conditions more expensive than that of a healthy person?

 

[oreo]

No, it's not.

How is forcing auto insurers to write policies for and pay for body work of cars, after the wreck, of any benefit to them?

What it is is a left-handed way to drive private insurance out of business, to the point that virtually everyone comes running to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for coverage.

What incentive do insurers have to lower premiums if the gov't mandates coverage but puts nothing in place drive prices down?

Sounds to me like they will get a whole mess of low risk mofo's on the books.

I smell big bonuses for execs and dividends for shareholders but not much premium shrinkage. Then they will claim that they aren't making any more profit than they were before the bill.

How do you intend upon driving prices down, when your policy can so clearly be seen as one that would drive costs up?

How do you expect your coverage to be less expensive --as a low risk taking individual-- if you have to pay for the medical expenses of a chain-smoking, Whopper-gobbling, video game playing , couch-surfing loser, who now expects you to absorb the costs for his coronary bypass?

Not....Gonna...Happen....Bubba.

DITTO--not only that, but I called Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield to complain about my 30% increase in premiums--& listened to a 2 minute recorded APOLOGY as to why medical insurance rates have sky-rocketed. They stated that all these new pills for God knows whatever--like "restlest leg syndrom" all the erectile dysfunction drugs, depression pills, etc. etc. etc. etc. that the pharmacutical industry has been pushing on us for several years now have been driving "everyone's" premiums through the roof.

 

[Oddball]

Would the premiums for higher risk people with preexisting conditions more expensive than that of a healthy person?

Betcha $100.00 to a dog turd that there'll be one mandate or another which prevents insurance companies from charging more for those with the pre-existing condition.

Can't be all "unfair" about it....Social justice and all that rot....

 

[Article 15]

I don't think we are talking about the same mandate, Dude.

I am talking about the bill making it mandatory that everyone buy insurance and I think you are talking about a mandate against denial for preexisting conditions.

 

[Article 15]

Would the premiums for higher risk people with preexisting conditions more expensive than that of a healthy person?

Betcha $100.00 to a dog turd that there'll be one mandate or another which prevents insurance companies from charging more for those with the pre-existing condition.

Can't be all "unfair" about it....Social justice and all that rot....

That seems a bit far fetched to me. An insurance company can charge more to insure a smoker over a non-smoker right now, can they not?

 

[elvis]

I don't think we are talking about the same mandate, Dude.

I am talking about the bill making it mandatory that everyone buy insurance and I think you are talking about a mandate against denial for preexisting conditions.

is there a section making it mandatory to buy insurance in the bill right now?

 

[Article 15]

I don't think we are talking about the same mandate, Dude.

I am talking about the bill making it mandatory that everyone buy insurance and I think you are talking about a mandate against denial for preexisting conditions.

is there a section making it mandatory to buy insurance in the bill right now?

I thought there was ....

The chance does exist that I am completely wrong tho.

 

[elvis]

I don't think we are talking about the same mandate, Dude.

I am talking about the bill making it mandatory that everyone buy insurance and I think you are talking about a mandate against denial for preexisting conditions.

is there a section making it mandatory to buy insurance in the bill right now?

I thought there was ....

The chance does exist that I am completely wrong tho.

you mean you haven't read all 3000 pages?

 

[Article 15]

is there a section making it mandatory to buy insurance in the bill right now?

I thought there was ....

The chance does exist that I am completely wrong tho.

you mean you haven't read all 3000 pages?

lol ...

Between work and school full time I've fallen behind in my reading a bit these days.

 

[elvis]

I thought there was ....

The chance does exist that I am completely wrong tho.

you mean you haven't read all 3000 pages?

lol ...

Between work and school full time I've fallen behind in my reading a bit these days.

step it up.

 

[oreo]

is there a section making it mandatory to buy insurance in the bill right now?

I thought there was ....

The chance does exist that I am completely wrong tho.

you mean you haven't read all 3000 pages?

They have added student loans to the health care bill now--

Anything to jam this bill down our throats.

 

[Oddball]

Would the premiums for higher risk people with preexisting conditions more expensive than that of a healthy person?

Betcha $100.00 to a dog turd that there'll be one mandate or another which prevents insurance companies from charging more for those with the pre-existing condition.

Can't be all "unfair" about it....Social justice and all that rot....

That seems a bit far fetched to me. An insurance company can charge more to insure a smoker over a non-smoker right now, can they not?

Outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants seemed far fetched, and were indeed decried as "alarmist", when the anti-smoking Nazis were pushing separate no smoking areas in those very places.

Roadside checkpoints seemed far fetched, and were indeed decried as "alarmist", when the anti-drinking Nazis started pushing for more and more and more draconian drinking-and-driving statutes.

People who who objected to the income tax were poo-pooed , and were indeed decried as "alarmist", when they pointed out that such a tax could possibly one day exceed the positively ridiculous rate of 10%.

How have those situations worked out?

 

[Article 15]

Betcha $100.00 to a dog turd that there'll be one mandate or another which prevents insurance companies from charging more for those with the pre-existing condition.

Can't be all "unfair" about it....Social justice and all that rot....

That seems a bit far fetched to me. An insurance company can charge more to insure a smoker over a non-smoker right now, can they not?

Outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants seemed far fetched, and were indeed decried as "alarmist", when the anti-smoking Nazis were pushing separate no smoking areas in those very places.

Roadside checkpoints seemed far fetched, and were indeed decried as "alarmist", when the anti-drinking Nazis started pushing for more and more and more draconian drinking-and-driving statutes.

People who who objected to the income tax were poo-pooed , and were indeed decried as "alarmist", when they pointed out that such a tax could possibly one day exceed the positively ridiculous rate of 10%.

How have those situations worked out?

I hear you but none of that really matters when it comes to this bill and how higher risk people are charged. Right now insurance companies can charge higher risk people more than they charge lower risk people. I haven't seen or heard any evidence that shows this bill changes this or forces insurance companies to charge people with preexisting conditions the same they would a normal healthy individual.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I thought lying was against their religion or something. Hmm, guess not.

well we sure know its not against yours....

 

[Oddball]

I hear you but none of that really matters when it comes to this bill and how higher risk people are charged. Right now insurance companies can charge higher risk people more than they charge lower risk people. I haven't seen or heard any evidence that shows this bill changes this or forces insurance companies to charge people with preexisting conditions the same they would a normal healthy individual.

Well, DUUUUH!

Does someone who keeps getting speeding tickets and wrecking their car pay more for auto insurance?.....How unfaaaiiiiirrrrr!

 

[Article 15]

I hear you but none of that really matters when it comes to this bill and how higher risk people are charged. Right now insurance companies can charge higher risk people more than they charge lower risk people. I haven't seen or heard any evidence that shows this bill changes this or forces insurance companies to charge people with preexisting conditions the same they would a normal healthy individual.

Well, DUUUUH!

Does someone who keeps getting speeding tickets and wrecking their car pay more for auto insurance?.....How unfaaaiiiiirrrrr!

Yes, they do. That is why I was arguing that people with preexisting conditions will have to pay higher premiums than a healthy adult.

 

[Oddball]

They shouldn't have any right to coverage at all.

Like I said, you don't get to wreck your car, then demand that you get to buy collision coverage to repair the damage.

One of the biggest problems with the current insurance model (basically pre-paid medical rather than insurance against catastrophic diseases or trauma) is the attitude of entitlement that a third party pay for everything, from brain surgery to a case of the sniffles. After that, there is the two-headed monster of state mandates to insurers as to the kinds of policies and coverages they must write up, and the prevention of people being able to shop out of state for the kind of coverage they want.

So, on one hand, we have gubmint dictating to insurers what kind of coverage is "proper" and what is not, then they turn around and bash the hell out of them when the costs of those mandated coverages go through the roof.

It's so Soviet that it's scary.

 

[Article 15]

They shouldn't have any right to coverage at all.

Like I said, you don't get to wreck your car, then demand that you get to buy collision coverage to repair the damage.

One of the biggest problems with the current insurance model (basically pre-paid medical rather than insurance against catastrophic diseases or trauma) is the attitude of entitlement that a third party pay for everything, from brain surgery to a case of the sniffles. After that, there is the two-headed monster of state mandates to insurers as to the kinds of policies and coverages they must write up, and the prevention of people being able to shop out of state for the kind of coverage they want.

So, on one hand, we have gubmint dictating to insurers what kind of coverage is "proper" and what is not, then they turn around and bash the hell out of them when the costs of those mandated coverages go through the roof.

It's so Soviet that it's scary.

I agree that it's effed up.

I think they should have the right to coverage from birth. That's where we differ. There is no such this as a preexisting condition in a universal healthcare system.

 

[Truthmatters]

How is opposing what we know is bad policy bad?

Do you understand that there is a difference between what States can do and what the Federal government can do right?

You see, the States arent limited by the Federal Constitution the way the Federal Government is. Congress has only limited powers. Controling Health care isn't one of them. It will never be made one of them. This will always be an illegal seizure of power.

States on the other hand, can do as they please for the most part. The state of Massachusetts passed their health care. They regret it now, but they passed it. That's there problem to deal with.

This is a socialist takeover of the Federal government. I don't care if Massachusetts as a state goes socialist or not. But the Federal government must not.

WOW just WOW, what a fucking gold plated liar this idiot is.