Republicans Lie All the Time, About Everything:

[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.

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.

Then you're not talking about "insurance" per se...You're talking about pre-paid medical, which basically boils down to socialized medicine, which has been a towering failure virtually everywhere it has been tried.

 

[California Girl]

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.

Have you ever really seen a 'UHS' system close up? I don't mean the one in Mass - that's getting Fed funding so it's not fully funded by the taxpayers. I mean a real single payer system? I have - I live under one. It is a ******* nightmare.

 

[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.

Then you're not talking about "insurance" per se...You're talking about pre-paid medical, which basically boils down to socialized medicine, which has been a towering failure virtually everywhere it has been tried.

The EU hasn't collapsed and Canada is still standing. I'll take my chances.

 

[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.

Have you ever really seen a 'UHS' system close up? I don't mean the one in Mass - that's getting Fed funding so it's not fully funded by the taxpayers. I mean a real single payer system? I have - I live under one. It is a ******* nightmare.

No, but I have seen our system close up.

Like I said, I'll take my chances.

You definitely wouldn't like how I would pay for it all.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

Have you ever really seen a 'UHS' system close up? I don't mean the one in Mass - that's getting Fed funding so it's not fully funded by the taxpayers. I mean a real single payer system? I have - I live under one. It is a ******* nightmare.

And their patient records and costs beat our system, how sad is that?

 

[California Girl]

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.

Have you ever really seen a 'UHS' system close up? I don't mean the one in Mass - that's getting Fed funding so it's not fully funded by the taxpayers. I mean a real single payer system? I have - I live under one. It is a ******* nightmare.

No, but I have seen our system close up.

Like I said, I'll take my chances.

You definitely wouldn't like how I would pay for it all.

Let me guess..... tax people like my parents, right?

 

[Article 15]

Have you ever really seen a 'UHS' system close up? I don't mean the one in Mass - that's getting Fed funding so it's not fully funded by the taxpayers. I mean a real single payer system? I have - I live under one. It is a ******* nightmare.

No, but I have seen our system close up.

Like I said, I'll take my chances.

You definitely wouldn't like how I would pay for it all.

Let me guess..... tax people like my parents, right?

Damn straight.

And ppl like myself.

And I would cut military spending in half.

 

[Oddball]

The EU hasn't collapsed and Canada is still standing. I'll take my chances.

That they're still standing is irrelevant to the fact that their socialized medical services scams are disasters.

The odds of you getting what you want from outside yourself, in any context, let alone form the stooge squad in the District of Criminals, are so remote that such taking of your chances is outright foolhardy.

 

[Some Guy]

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.

Allow me to explain how this could completely destroy the health insurance industry as we know it. It's due to a combination of the mandate + preexisting conditions clause.

The law will be required you to have health insurance, or simply pay a fine. The fine is expected to be drastically cheaper (according to what i've read) than paying for a health insurance plan. This is where the preexisting conditions clause comes in. That says that i can't be denied health insurance with a preexisting condition.

So, basically, why wouldn't everyone pay the minuscule fine to the government (instead of paying much more per year for health insurance) and simply wait until you suffer that bad accident or contract that bad disease before signing up for health insurance? It basically makes the "insurance" into simply "third party payer of health care bills." Hell, if i contract a deadly form of cancer, i now can't be denied, and even if i have to pay a lot for health insurance at that point, it's still going to be much cheaper considering all the money i saved by not having insurance prior, and the health insurance is forced to pay thousands more in health care bills for me than they're getting from me.

Under that system, the health insurance companies will just call it quits, putting everyone that was once employed for them out of a job, creating a whole lot more unemployment and thus less of a tax base, leaving everyone uninsured. That's when the government steps in, says that health insurance companies got what they deserved for trying to charge you so much, then "saves the day" with single payer by just drastically increasing the "fine" for not having health care through a private insurer.

It's pretty genius actually. That's why i simply can't understand why the single payer fans aren't just loving this Senate bill. This is about as bullet-proof a plan for that as you're realistically going to get, you'll just have to wait a few years.

 

[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.

Allow me to explain how this could completely destroy the health insurance industry as we know it. It's due to a combination of the mandate + preexisting conditions clause.

The law will be required you to have health insurance, or simply pay a fine. The fine is expected to be drastically cheaper (according to what i've read) than paying for a health insurance plan. This is where the preexisting conditions clause comes in. That says that i can't be denied health insurance with a preexisting condition.

So, basically, why wouldn't everyone pay the minuscule fine to the government (instead of paying much more per year for health insurance) and simply wait until you suffer that bad accident or contract that bad disease before signing up for health insurance? It basically makes the "insurance" into simply "third party payer of health care bills." Hell, if i contract a deadly form of cancer, i now can't be denied, and even if i have to pay a lot for health insurance at that point, it's still going to be much cheaper considering all the money i saved by not having insurance prior, and the health insurance is forced to pay thousands more in health care bills for me than they're getting from me.

Under that system, the health insurance companies will just call it quits, putting everyone that was once employed for them out of a job, creating a whole lot more unemployment and thus less of a tax base, leaving everyone uninsured. That's when the government steps in, says that health insurance companies got what they deserved for trying to charge you so much, then "saves the day" with single payer by just drastically increasing the "fine" for not having health care through a private insurer.

It's pretty genius actually. That's why i simply can't understand why the single payer fans aren't just loving this Senate bill. This is about as bullet-proof a plan for that as you're realistically going to get, you'll just have to wait a few years.

Thanks for the explanation. Of course, I'm against this bill and part of the reason is what you just described.

 

[California Girl]

No, but I have seen our system close up.

Like I said, I'll take my chances.

You definitely wouldn't like how I would pay for it all.

Let me guess..... tax people like my parents, right?

Damn straight.

And ppl like myself.

And I would cut military spending in half.

Explain to me why people like my parents who have worked hard all their lives, and achieved the 'American Dream', should have money taken from them to provide for others who won't work?

 

[Article 15]

Let me guess..... tax people like my parents, right?

Damn straight.

And ppl like myself.

And I would cut military spending in half.

Explain to me why people like my parents who have worked hard all their lives, and achieved the 'American Dream', should have money taken from them to provide for others who won't work?

I believe the sick should be cared for (this includes preventative measures like regular check ups) and that we, as a society, should collectively take care of that. Realistically, we can't all be haves ... so the haves take care of the have nots. I understand you don't agree with tax dollars being spent this way but I'm not happy with the way all of my tax dollars are spent either.

*shrug*

 

[California Girl]

Damn straight.

And ppl like myself.

And I would cut military spending in half.

Explain to me why people like my parents who have worked hard all their lives, and achieved the 'American Dream', should have money taken from them to provide for others who won't work?

I believe the sick should be cared for (this includes preventative measures like regular check ups) and that we, as a society, should collectively take care of that. Realistically, we can't all be haves ... so the haves take care of the have nots. I understand you don't agree with tax dollars being spent this way but I'm not happy with the way all of my tax dollars are spent either.

*shrug*

How impressively judgemental of you. Nobody died and made you God. You believe whatever you want. Personally, because I know how much my parents already do - voluntarily - I see no reason why anyone should take from them what they have earned. It is not for you or anyone else to decide what other people should do. My parents already do help those less fortunate. My Dad takes on people that are deemed unemployable by most and trains them - and pays them well while they learn a trade. He donated a plane and crew to help ferry aid to Haiti. I personally work with homeless people to teach them skills to get jobs. All my family work for charities. That's how we were raised.... to give back. Why does the government have the right to take from us? If we lived properly - ie, if we teach our children to give back to society, and do it willingly, we would have a better country.

You want to take from us? **** you.... and I mean that in the nicest possible way cuz I like you.

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

We know it's not against yours.