Republicans want to end pre-exisiting conditions (PECS)

[Grumblenuts]

WTF are you talking about??? Pre-existing conditions are illnesses or health problems you have before buying insurance.

How does it make sense to first tell them you're sick so they can deny your coverage? If you need help you don't get any. If you don't need it, fine!

How does it make sense to wait until you wreck you car to demand collision coverage from your insurer?

Duh! If your car is a wreck it has little value left to insure. Think, McFly!

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you need help you don't get any. If you don't need it, fine!

Yep, that's how insurance works. It's a way for people to protect their savings from bankruptcy. If you don't have a savings, you don't need insurance - you need more money.

One needs to be reasonably healthy in order to make money in order to create the savings that some different form of insurance might protect (life, auto, homeowners, ...)

Truisms and platitudes aren't arguments.

Big labor and socialists have tried to confuse the issue by promoting employer-provided, group "insurance", which isn't really insurance at all, but instead employer provided health care. I don't really get why they thought it was a good idea to make people dependent on their employers for health care.

The history is no secret and corporatists reacting to war time labor restrictions mainly pushed for it. Sucks now in any case.

So the answer to bad socialistic policy is now a total takeover and monopolization by the same entity -The State- that screwed up the works in the first place!

How could anyone miss such an obvious solution?

True, your puerile reactive platitudes aren't arguments.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Insurance is an assumption of risk. One cannot assume a risk that has already occurred and call it insurance. It then becomes charity.

A pre-existing condition is a continuing risk. If it were finished ("already occurred") there would be nothing for the insurance corporation (you?) to worry about insuring against. Play with the words all you like. You can't fool everyone.

That's the funniest spin I've heard in awhile. Points for originality.

You obviously know nothing about the concept of insurance.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You obviously know nothing about the concept of insurance.

You have yet to demonstrate a clue, but thanks anyway

 

[Oddball]

Scandinavians, hell most of the world now simply treats reasonable, minimal health care as a right. They gladly pay more taxes in exchange for much better health care and outcomes, freedom to work where they choose, higher productivity, and no out of pocket essential health care costs.

Bullshit.

They pay as a matter of course...Your opinion about their being "glad" about is beyond speculation and irrelevant to the fact.

 

[Oddball]

Insurance is an assumption of risk. One cannot assume a risk that has already occurred and call it insurance. It then becomes charity.

A pre-existing condition is a continuing risk. If it were finished ("already occurred") there would be nothing for the insurance corporation (you?) to worry about insuring against. Play with the words all you like. You can't fool everyone.

Listen to the commie accuse others of playing with words!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Insurance is an assumption of risk. One cannot assume a risk that has already occurred and call it insurance. It then becomes charity.

A pre-existing condition is a continuing risk. If it were finished ("already occurred") there would be nothing for the insurance corporation (you?) to worry about insuring against. Play with the words all you like. You can't fool everyone.

Listen to the commie accuse others of playing with words!

The density of skulls is sometimes difficult to predict. Grumblenuts gives us a flash card answer, saving us time.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your opinion about their being "glad" about is beyond speculation and irrelevant to the fact.

Grab your balls and assert something original for a change instead just knee-jerk attacking those of others. The relevant "fact" in your humble opinion?

The top three happiest countries, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, are all among the highest taxed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in terms of total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The widely enjoyed social benefits residents get in exchange for their taxes, such as universal health care, access to education and subsidized parental leave, could have something to do with the “strong social foundations” touted by Sachs.

Fact: Glad!

 

[Oddball]

Your opinion about their being "glad" about is beyond speculation and irrelevant to the fact.

Grab your balls and assert something original for a change instead just knee-jerk attacking those of others. The relevant "fact" in your humble opinion?

The top three happiest countries, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, are all among the highest taxed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in terms of total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The widely enjoyed social benefits residents get in exchange for their taxes, such as universal health care, access to education and subsidized parental leave, could have something to do with the “strong social foundations” touted by Sachs.

Fact: Glad!

That bullshit "study" has been debunked eight ways from Sunday, tovarich....Even NPR admitted as much.

Are Danes Really That Happy? The Myth Of The Scandinavian Utopia

Like I just said, you Marxist dweebs would be nowhere without deliberate lies and mischaracterizations.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Even NPR admitted as much.

National Republican Radio? Truly shocking!
Went and cherry picked a dour Norwegian to interview and misrepresent the argument for you, did they? Fine. Next: Sweden..

Given that tax is a dirty word for many people around the world, you might expect that the government agency that grabs about a third of the average hard-working Swede’s pay packet would be public enemy No 1.

But the truth couldn’t be more different. The Swedish Tax Agency(Skatteverket), is popular. In fact, it is really popular, with poll after poll showing that it is trusted and respected. A 2016 survey (link in Swedish) by market research institute TNS Sifo concluded that the Tax Agency has the fifth best reputation – beaten by Lantmäteriet (responsible for property division) and the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV) – of 29 major Swedish public bodies, scoring highly for its customer service and for ‘contributing positively to society’.

Glad.

 

[Oddball]

Even NPR admitted as much.

National Republican Radio? Truly shocking!
Went and cherry picked a dour Norwegian to interview and misrepresent the argument for you, did they? Fine. Next: Sweden..

Given that tax is a dirty word for many people around the world, you might expect that the government agency that grabs about a third of the average hard-working Swede’s pay packet would be public enemy No 1.

But the truth couldn’t be more different. The Swedish Tax Agency(Skatteverket), is popular. In fact, it is really popular, with poll after poll showing that it is trusted and respected. A 2016 survey (link in Swedish) by market research institute TNS Sifo concluded that the Tax Agency has the fifth best reputation – beaten by Lantmäteriet (responsible for property division) and the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV) – of 29 major Swedish public bodies, scoring highly for its customer service and for ‘contributing positively to society’.

Glad.

You're a fucking imbecile....A taxing agency having an allegedly good reputation doesn't denote that those being fleeced are "glad" about it.

 

[boedicca]

Rep. Elissa Slotkin Defends Bill to Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting, just age and male or female.

The LBGTQA folks are not going to be happy about that.

Just sayin'.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Even NPR admitted as much.

National Republican Radio? Truly shocking!
Went and cherry picked a dour Norwegian to interview and misrepresent the argument for you, did they? Fine. Next: Sweden..

Given that tax is a dirty word for many people around the world, you might expect that the government agency that grabs about a third of the average hard-working Swede’s pay packet would be public enemy No 1.

But the truth couldn’t be more different. The Swedish Tax Agency(Skatteverket), is popular. In fact, it is really popular, with poll after poll showing that it is trusted and respected. A 2016 survey (link in Swedish) by market research institute TNS Sifo concluded that the Tax Agency has the fifth best reputation – beaten by Lantmäteriet (responsible for property division) and the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV) – of 29 major Swedish public bodies, scoring highly for its customer service and for ‘contributing positively to society’.

Glad.

You're a fucking imbecile....A taxing agency having an allegedly good reputation doesn't denote that those being fleeced are "glad" about it.

Indeed you can't read.

 

[Oddball]

Even NPR admitted as much.

National Republican Radio? Truly shocking!
Went and cherry picked a dour Norwegian to interview and misrepresent the argument for you, did they? Fine. Next: Sweden..

Given that tax is a dirty word for many people around the world, you might expect that the government agency that grabs about a third of the average hard-working Swede’s pay packet would be public enemy No 1.

But the truth couldn’t be more different. The Swedish Tax Agency(Skatteverket), is popular. In fact, it is really popular, with poll after poll showing that it is trusted and respected. A 2016 survey (link in Swedish) by market research institute TNS Sifo concluded that the Tax Agency has the fifth best reputation – beaten by Lantmäteriet (responsible for property division) and the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV) – of 29 major Swedish public bodies, scoring highly for its customer service and for ‘contributing positively to society’.

Glad.

You're a fucking imbecile....A taxing agency having an allegedly good reputation doesn't denote that those being fleeced are "glad" about it.

Indeed you can't read.

I can read just fine.....You can't fudge semantics on me, Karl.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Rep. Elissa Slotkin Defends Bill to Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting, just age and male or female.

The LBGTQA folks are not going to be happy about that.

Just sayin'.

Wondered about the reasoning behind that comment too. I applaud only the linked video unreservedly.

 

[Oddball]

WTF are you talking about??? Pre-existing conditions are illnesses or health problems you have before buying insurance.

How does it make sense to first tell them you're sick so they can deny your coverage? If you need help you don't get any. If you don't need it, fine!

How does it make sense to wait until you wreck you car to demand collision coverage from your insurer?

Duh! If your car is a wreck it has little value left to insure. Think, McFly!

Irrelevant to the overall point, numbnutz....Insurance, properly defined, is for the unforseen....It's not meant to be a cost shift for those too foolhardy to plan ahead.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Next, Denmark.. https://www.moneymow.com/love-paying-50-income-tax-denmark/
Glad!

 

[Penelope]

Rep. Elissa Slotkin Defends Bill to Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting, just age and male or female.

The LBGTQA folks are not going to be happy about that.

Just sayin'.

Perhaps, males have higher premiums, at least in my state. Probably shouldn't put male or female down hey.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Insurance, properly defined, is for the unforseen....It's not meant to be a cost shift for those too foolhardy to plan ahead.

Given "insurance is for the unforeseen"... costs of care for pre-existing health conditions are, of course, largely unforeseen. Conversely, costs to care for new health problems that crop up can be largely predicted based on medical history and current health. Thus pertinent actuarial tables, bonehead.

 

[Oddball]

Insurance, properly defined, is for the unforseen....It's not meant to be a cost shift for those too foolhardy to plan ahead.

Given "insurance is for the unforeseen"... costs of care for pre-existing health conditions are, of course, largely unforeseen. Conversely, costs to care for new health problems that crop up can be largely predicted based on medical history and current health. Thus pertinent actuarial tables, bonehead.

The costs are known...They're fucking expensive...And you lazy looters don't want to plan ahead...You want to wait until it's too late and then shift the burden for your foolhardiness onto everyone else.