Suits make suits feel better, but they're not for everyone. While a Hawaiian shirt and a g-string aren't work appropriate,
While the g-string isn't appropriate attire, when I worked in Hawaii, a Hawaiian shirt can certainly be considered professional attire. I'm not talking about the cheap '5 for $20' ones. The nice ones are about $50 or so, probably higher for more special ones (silk, or hand made, not just brand). I saw professionals in banking, law offices, architectural firms, insurance, all different fields, wearing Hawaiian shirts on a daily basis.
Also, in regards to the people biking into work, I did that after I got married while in the military. We lived about 6 miles off base. Riding in the early morning, at a comfortable pace, and with a shower before changing into my cammies at work, and working either in an air conditioned space or in a breezy open-air hanger, I still sweated like a pig all morning. I would never be able to ride to work at a professional job with that result.
Our Constitution states what the Congress is allowed to do, what the Executive branch is allowed to do, and what the Supreme Court is allowed to do. It specifically states, in Amendments 9 and 10, that nothing else is in the realm of the federal government. Things it specifically mentions in the main body of the Constitution include military, post offices, printing money, and many others. Amendment 9 says there are more individual rights than what have been listed in Amendment 1 through 8, and they are also to be honored by the federal government. Amendment 10 says the federal government has no power other that the specific items listed in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say Congress is allowed to force American citizens to have to buy a product or go to jail.
So, since the Constitution does not say Congress has the authority to force everyone into a health care system, or force everyone into a health insurance contract, or even force anyone to buy a commercial product, and the Constitution further says that whatever is not specifically set forth in the Constitution is outside of the powers and responsibilities of Congress, the ACA is not a constitutional law. It was not constitutional when it was passed, and is not constitutional now, the Supreme Court's decision not withstanding. The Supreme Court's decision actually was in violation of the Constitution, as it granted Congress powers that are not allowed in the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power to do so.
The same is true of the NSA spying that has been revealed in the last few months. It violates our Constitution, but is supported by all three branches of our federal government. The government could claim national defense in the first months after the 9/11 attacks, but that reason can't last forever. The fact that the programs are still going on, and increasing in scope, is the same issue of Congress and the Executive branch overstepping their bounds, with the complicity of the courts. The actions of the NSA, in regards to spying on US citizens within our own bordes, is as unconstitutional as the ACA is.
Because the ACA is not a health care system. It is a requirement for US citizens to buy a commercial product or be punished. The US federal government does not have that power in the Constitution. Individual states can decide to enact a similar individual mandate, such as Massachusetts did, or an employer mandate, such as Hawaii did. I have no issue with that, because states can do whatever their people agree to, as long as their own State Constitution does not forbid it. But the federal Constitution does not allow Congress to do this.
Actually, I think way too many conservatives are talking a bunch of crap, because their main argument is whether the law is Constitutional or not. Well, what would they argue if the states passed an Amendment that specifically authorized Congress to enact the individual and business mandates? Would they still be against it, when it is then Constitutional? Or would they have to fall back to simply "I don't like socialized medicine" (which the ACA is not)?
For myself, I am not against the concept of "socialized medicine". But I think Obamacare is a horrible attempt at it (as well as being unconstitutional), and there are numerous stories in the news that show why. I think it is a major factor in our slow economic recovery, and if it wasn't there, more people would be able to find or keep full time or near full time jobs. It is also the reason everyone's premiums are going up. Not from more people joining, but from the requirements for every plan to cover everyone, forever, all at the same cost within a plan.
And I take back the 'idiot' jab. It was the response that came to mind when reading your initial post. I'm not going to lie and say I'm sorry for saying it, but it was not civil, and not what I should have said. Thanks for the conversation.:^)
The idea behind insurance is that it is a personal choice to have it or not.
Where the fuck did you get that?
I get that from the fact that health insurance, life insurance, home owners insurance, renters insurance, are all voluntary expenses people take to mitigate their own personal loss if something bad happens. Insurance that is designed to protect others' loss, such as car insurance, malpractice insurance, workman's comp insurance, and so on are not considered a personal choice, and as such are required for certain activities. I actually have problems with them being required, but accept they are a reasonable burden. However, for each of these, there is a wide range of plans available with greatly different coverages and prices.
The ACA has taken all the low to moderate priced plans away, and put such burdens on the rest that their cost is soaring. President Obama only got the ACA passed by promising it would lower costs. Whatever you want for your own coverage, great, have at it. But leave the rest of the country alone, and let them have affordable insurance again.
Really? You know exactly what I think? How do you have this prescient vision? And how do I get it?
For your information, yes, I would much rather have to crawl off into the forest and die, than be forced to buy something against my will. But I would much rather this current administration stop killing our business culture, so that everyone could find full employment again. Then I could have insurance, which is what you apparently want. But you support the plan that is actually forcing people off of their existing insurance plans, and raising the cost of new plans so that they can't afford them.
Honestly, your post is just a pile of nonsense and talking point bullshit that someone else shoved into your mouth. And you are happy to smile and regurgitate it back at me, as if it came from your own brain.
As far as "we *all* agree to chip in", how many people didn't have health insurance last year? About 50 million. How many people had coverage? About 250 million. So, that means we will add about 20% more people to the system, as far as paying in. However there are three points that don't work in your argument's favor. 1) A large number of those people are under the age of 25, so will most likely be on their parents' plan. They won't have their own plan, at the full cost; they'll be an addition to an existing plan. 2) The people who were too poor to afford insurance, are still too poor to afford insurance. So we will "chip in" to support them. Just like you are lamenting is happening now. 3) The other main group of uninsured is the people who have the dreaded pre-existing conditions. So their joining the system will cost a lot more than they are paying in under any plan they get.
So, in review, the uninsured people in this country generally consist of some groups that won't add money to the system, and another that will take much more money out of the system.
A better idea would be for the federal government to have simply setup a national system for the uninsureable, to get them coverage, and let the rest of us choose our own destiny. Either way, society is paying for as much coverage as you wish to ensure. My system though doesn't force people to buy a product from rich Wall Street bankers just for the privilege of living in the USA. You apparently relish the thought of giving money to Wall Street bankers.
Excuse me, but you have me confused with an alternate-reality boogyman you dreamed up last night.
Did I say I don't think the government has the right to have police or fire departments? Did I say highways and parks are unconstitutional? No, I never said any of that. I have in the past called Libertarians idiots for pushing just those type issues.
As far as "sacrificing some personal gain for the common good", I thought that was the exact thing the liberals fought against for the last 40 years. They want their own personal freedom, at the expense of a well-ordered civil society where "blacks know their place". So, now that your side is in charge, you can force your opponents to live against their wishes, just as their predecessors did to yours. For the common good, of course. Just point me to the train cars; I won't resist.
It's not what I call it. It's what its implementers and defenders call it. And if it is not a tax, it is unconstitutional. So, please convince our Supreme Court that it isn't a tax.
Hi there, NoImNotNineVolt. Although I'm sure we have very different view on this issue, I'm glad you are asking intelligent questions. Much better than the ones above and below you.
As for the "better outcomes" in other countries, you have to be more specific. If you mean "longer life expectancy", there are several causes of it being lower in the US. The first that comes to mind is our murder rate, which ends many lives at a young age. One kid dying at age 15 cancels out a dozen living 5 years past our life expectancy. I would like to see what removing the murder victims does to the life expectancy figures.
Tied into that, but also a concern on its own, is the obesity rate in the US. We are way too fat and lazy in this country. I'm part of that myself, but on the low end of the bulge. The number of people who have conditions tied to their obesity is horrible. But we can't exactly force them to eat right and go jogging.
As to whether whether a nationalized health plan not covering some treatments is comparable to a lifetime cap on insurance payout, I honestly don't know what the comparison would be. But a factor you have to consider is that many people have the so-called Cadillac plans with such high caps, they never reach them. Possible some have no caps at all, but I don't know the details of high end plans. In the national systems that don't cover high-priced treatments, no one gets them because they don't exist. So unless they have money to pay for it themselves, or have a high price supplemental insurance plan, the people who need the treatment don't get it. Maybe it's all equal in the end, but it seems like either system limits the options of the non-wealthy. In which case, I would rather have the freedom to choose my own level of coverage, rather than the politicians and bureaucrats. Even if it means I take greater risk overall.
With all that said, I think a much better plan would be to have the same system we had before, and simply have the people who are "uninsurable" get coverage through the federal government. This would keep it off the states' books, while covering the ones who need it. I'm sure there's issues that would need to be worked out, but it would have been easier and less disruptive than Obamacare.
Anyhow, again, good questions. Thanks for your response.
If you feel that insurance is a "personal choice" then shouldn't the flip side be true... the doctors have a "personal choice" whether you should be treated or not based upon the fact you cannot pay for their services?
Yes, that's exactly what I think.
I also think a black business owner can refuse to hire or serve white people. I also believe a person can swear and call people bad names without being sued. And I believe a devoutly religious person can fire someone who doesn't follow their faith, or an atheist can fire someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky. Basically, I cannot force you to take my money to pay for your goods or services, and you can't force me to do so either. I also cannot force you to give me your money for my goods or services, and you can't force me to give you my money.
I know that sounds evil and whatnot nowadays, but that is what I consider basic human freedom. If you think otherwise, I have a bridge I'll sell you, and you don't have a choice in the matter.
The idea behind insurance is that it is a personal choice to have it or not. Now it's just a tax that unfairly impacts young healthy people. This is only your perception because you lived in a country that historically had a bad health care system. Insurance is certainly not a tax.
You are an idiot. The only reason Obamacare was ruled Constitutional was because the administration argued it is a tax. If it isn't a tax, it is null and void.
The problem there is you are conflating "health care" and "health insurance". Socialized healthcare costs what it costs, which is no more than the money the government puts towards it. If something would cost more, the government decides if they pay for it or not. They also have the full weight of the government, and its purse, to keep the system going. If, in the future, they want to expand coverage more, they can also raise taxes, or charge a fee, or limit spending in other government areas, to get the extra funds needed for the new service.
In contrast, a company that offers health insurance has to charge enough now to cover future costs. At any given time, they have to have enough cash to cover likely costs, but they also have to have enough of a cushion to cover unexpectedly higher costs. If they don't do that, any crisis may bankrupt them. So, now that they have no lifetime cap, they have to budget for much higher potential costs than they used to budget for. Also, Obamacare forces them to cover more procedures, with every plan they offer. So, they have to raise their monthly premium to cover this increased future liability as well.
Wow, that's insightful. So the whole liberal rant about people being bankrupted by medical bills is a lie. Is that what you are saying? Because that is what your words are saying.
Here's a note from your fellow liberals: Shut up you dork, you are giving them talking points to fight our talking points.
The law makes it illegal to sell certain types of insurance, and they're forced to sell you prepackaged insurance similar to the way cable companies package channels.
Yes, the law forbids selling insurance plans with fixed "lifetime caps." Especially those where the payout cap is less than the cost of many major treatments. Now, some people may argue that people who signed up for those very low cost programs did so with full knowledge that their "coverage" wouldn't actually pay their bills, and I'm sure the commissioned sales agents went out of their way to explain this risk, but it sure does seem like a short road to fraud.
Insurance Plan A: High copay, low lifetime cap, very low monthly premium Insurance Plan B: Moderate copay, moderate lifetime cap, low monthly premium Insurance Plan C: Low copay, high lifetime cap, moderate monthly premium Insurance Plan D: No copay, extremely high lifetime cap, high monthly premium Insurance Plan E: High copay, no lifetime cap, exorbitant monthly premium Insurance Plan F: Moderate copay, no lifetime cap, exorbitant monthly premium Insurance Plan G: No copay, no lifetime cap, exorbitant monthly premium
Everyone who wanted to save money on their monthly bills, at the risk of catastrophic loss, could have chosen from Plans A or B. This would be ideal for young adults just starting out, who have very low risk of cancer, heart disease, or failing organs.
As people get into a career, (professional, union, independent, whatever) they could move into the higher insurance categories such as Plan C or D. Families may choose Plan C specifically, in case a child does have a high-cost condition.
But now, plans A-D are being shut down, and everyone is being forced to buy Plan E, F or G. Notice what those plans have in common.
ACA also bans policies with "preexisting condition" clauses.
Which is the other main reason the future insurance plans will have exorbitant monthly premiums.
Those policies allowed insurance companies to offer substantial discounts to customers who could prove they were healthy and unlikely to actually need anything but trauma care. Unfortunately, they did so by punishing people with genetic predispositions or family history of certain diseases with extremely high premiums. Insurance is about spreading the cost of unusual but expensive events across a large pool of people - essentially averaging the cost and risk - and biasing the cost towards those with the most risk is certainly a legitimate strategy. On the other hand, it seems "unfair" to subject certain people to 3x or 4x insurance premiums just because of who their parents are.
Do you keep full insurance on a 20-year-old Buick? Especially insurance that covers every mechanical and electrical system in the car? If you did have such coverage, would you expect to pay the same as the guy that has basic coverage? It may seem unfair to base insurance rates on people's likelihood (damn, that's a hard word to make my fingers type) of future, or even immediate, use of such insurance, but that is truly what insurance is.
So, yeah, people who were paying for "scam" health insurance are going to have to get "real" health insurance, and real coverage costs more. Likewise, the hordes of healthy, unemployed young people are going to have to pay a little more (or stay on their parents' plan) to reduce the costs to the few really sick people. But that's the whole idea behind insurance.
No, that's the whole idea behind Obamacare. The idea behind insurance is that it is a personal choice to have it or not. Now it's just a tax that unfairly impacts young healthy people.
Well, killfixx apparently has a computer, but knows many families who don't. So, he is just getting by, but can afford a cheap computer. The other families probably have children, and put their meager paycheck into food, clothing, and other essentials, which doesn't include computers.
Alternatively, he is reading and posting while at work, and doesn't actually own a computer himself. This is less likely than the assumption above.
Why would you presume that is what he meant? Especially since his response to my post was "I didn't know that."
I haven't seen anyone posting about "the minority Republicans" who mean that the Republicans only received 46.9% of the vote, except is responses like yours. So, no, I reject the argument that the use of the phrase "the minority" to describe the Republicans in the House is anything other than Democrat propaganda, which has been supported by the media where I've heard it repeated uncritically, and is now used by people such as Howitzer86 above without realizing its erroneous nature.
As far as how many votes and seats the Republicans lost in 2012, a lot of that is due to two factors. President Obama was on the ballot, and brought out people who stayed home the previous cycle. And Mitt Romney was on the ballot, which didn't bring out a mass of conservatives to swell the Republicans' numbers. But of the Republicans who did win the election, many ran on the promise to oppose Obamacare and greater debt, and that is what their constituents voted for. Why shouldn't they "represent the will of the people" who put them there as their representatives?
Actually, a big problem is using the term "minority" to mean Republicans, when they are the majority party in the House. Comparing them to the Democrats, who hold fewer elected seats in Washington, "minority" is not correct.
Yeah, but "lesbian free chat" is probably the high point of this discussion so far.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate it when I'm in a chat room with my bros, talking about manly things like football and washing cars, and a group of lesbians join in. Acting like they are as macho as us men are. Hell, they don't even want to run around with a bunch of sweaty men throwing their balls around. And their take on a bikini or topless car was is enough to turn your stomach. Or would, if you aren't as manly as us men are.
So, in conclusion, I am glad there are chat rooms now that are lesbian free. It's just more natural that way.
Slashdot Mirror
No he wasn't. He was just holding that penis for a friend.
I'm still waiting for the Russian information that they promised a few years ago. Whatever became of that story?
Suits make suits feel better, but they're not for everyone. While a Hawaiian shirt and a g-string aren't work appropriate,
While the g-string isn't appropriate attire, when I worked in Hawaii, a Hawaiian shirt can certainly be considered professional attire. I'm not talking about the cheap '5 for $20' ones. The nice ones are about $50 or so, probably higher for more special ones (silk, or hand made, not just brand). I saw professionals in banking, law offices, architectural firms, insurance, all different fields, wearing Hawaiian shirts on a daily basis.
Also, in regards to the people biking into work, I did that after I got married while in the military. We lived about 6 miles off base. Riding in the early morning, at a comfortable pace, and with a shower before changing into my cammies at work, and working either in an air conditioned space or in a breezy open-air hanger, I still sweated like a pig all morning. I would never be able to ride to work at a professional job with that result.
Our Constitution states what the Congress is allowed to do, what the Executive branch is allowed to do, and what the Supreme Court is allowed to do. It specifically states, in Amendments 9 and 10, that nothing else is in the realm of the federal government. Things it specifically mentions in the main body of the Constitution include military, post offices, printing money, and many others. Amendment 9 says there are more individual rights than what have been listed in Amendment 1 through 8, and they are also to be honored by the federal government. Amendment 10 says the federal government has no power other that the specific items listed in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say Congress is allowed to force American citizens to have to buy a product or go to jail.
So, since the Constitution does not say Congress has the authority to force everyone into a health care system, or force everyone into a health insurance contract, or even force anyone to buy a commercial product, and the Constitution further says that whatever is not specifically set forth in the Constitution is outside of the powers and responsibilities of Congress, the ACA is not a constitutional law. It was not constitutional when it was passed, and is not constitutional now, the Supreme Court's decision not withstanding. The Supreme Court's decision actually was in violation of the Constitution, as it granted Congress powers that are not allowed in the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power to do so.
The same is true of the NSA spying that has been revealed in the last few months. It violates our Constitution, but is supported by all three branches of our federal government. The government could claim national defense in the first months after the 9/11 attacks, but that reason can't last forever. The fact that the programs are still going on, and increasing in scope, is the same issue of Congress and the Executive branch overstepping their bounds, with the complicity of the courts. The actions of the NSA, in regards to spying on US citizens within our own bordes, is as unconstitutional as the ACA is.
Because the ACA is not a health care system. It is a requirement for US citizens to buy a commercial product or be punished. The US federal government does not have that power in the Constitution. Individual states can decide to enact a similar individual mandate, such as Massachusetts did, or an employer mandate, such as Hawaii did. I have no issue with that, because states can do whatever their people agree to, as long as their own State Constitution does not forbid it. But the federal Constitution does not allow Congress to do this.
Actually, I think way too many conservatives are talking a bunch of crap, because their main argument is whether the law is Constitutional or not. Well, what would they argue if the states passed an Amendment that specifically authorized Congress to enact the individual and business mandates? Would they still be against it, when it is then Constitutional? Or would they have to fall back to simply "I don't like socialized medicine" (which the ACA is not)?
For myself, I am not against the concept of "socialized medicine". But I think Obamacare is a horrible attempt at it (as well as being unconstitutional), and there are numerous stories in the news that show why. I think it is a major factor in our slow economic recovery, and if it wasn't there, more people would be able to find or keep full time or near full time jobs. It is also the reason everyone's premiums are going up. Not from more people joining, but from the requirements for every plan to cover everyone, forever, all at the same cost within a plan.
And I take back the 'idiot' jab. It was the response that came to mind when reading your initial post. I'm not going to lie and say I'm sorry for saying it, but it was not civil, and not what I should have said. Thanks for the conversation. :^)
Feeding their dog? Walking around in their underwear? Reading Slashdot?
Don't that's going to cut it at the office. :)
I managed to break a couple cars while I was a teenager. But they cost less than those ipads do.
Where the fuck did you get that?
I get that from the fact that health insurance, life insurance, home owners insurance, renters insurance, are all voluntary expenses people take to mitigate their own personal loss if something bad happens. Insurance that is designed to protect others' loss, such as car insurance, malpractice insurance, workman's comp insurance, and so on are not considered a personal choice, and as such are required for certain activities. I actually have problems with them being required, but accept they are a reasonable burden. However, for each of these, there is a wide range of plans available with greatly different coverages and prices.
The ACA has taken all the low to moderate priced plans away, and put such burdens on the rest that their cost is soaring. President Obama only got the ACA passed by promising it would lower costs. Whatever you want for your own coverage, great, have at it. But leave the rest of the country alone, and let them have affordable insurance again.
Really? You know exactly what I think? How do you have this prescient vision? And how do I get it?
For your information, yes, I would much rather have to crawl off into the forest and die, than be forced to buy something against my will. But I would much rather this current administration stop killing our business culture, so that everyone could find full employment again. Then I could have insurance, which is what you apparently want. But you support the plan that is actually forcing people off of their existing insurance plans, and raising the cost of new plans so that they can't afford them.
Honestly, your post is just a pile of nonsense and talking point bullshit that someone else shoved into your mouth. And you are happy to smile and regurgitate it back at me, as if it came from your own brain.
As far as "we *all* agree to chip in", how many people didn't have health insurance last year? About 50 million. How many people had coverage? About 250 million. So, that means we will add about 20% more people to the system, as far as paying in. However there are three points that don't work in your argument's favor. 1) A large number of those people are under the age of 25, so will most likely be on their parents' plan. They won't have their own plan, at the full cost; they'll be an addition to an existing plan. 2) The people who were too poor to afford insurance, are still too poor to afford insurance. So we will "chip in" to support them. Just like you are lamenting is happening now. 3) The other main group of uninsured is the people who have the dreaded pre-existing conditions. So their joining the system will cost a lot more than they are paying in under any plan they get.
So, in review, the uninsured people in this country generally consist of some groups that won't add money to the system, and another that will take much more money out of the system.
A better idea would be for the federal government to have simply setup a national system for the uninsureable, to get them coverage, and let the rest of us choose our own destiny. Either way, society is paying for as much coverage as you wish to ensure. My system though doesn't force people to buy a product from rich Wall Street bankers just for the privilege of living in the USA. You apparently relish the thought of giving money to Wall Street bankers.
Excuse me, but you have me confused with an alternate-reality boogyman you dreamed up last night.
Did I say I don't think the government has the right to have police or fire departments? Did I say highways and parks are unconstitutional? No, I never said any of that. I have in the past called Libertarians idiots for pushing just those type issues.
As far as "sacrificing some personal gain for the common good", I thought that was the exact thing the liberals fought against for the last 40 years. They want their own personal freedom, at the expense of a well-ordered civil society where "blacks know their place". So, now that your side is in charge, you can force your opponents to live against their wishes, just as their predecessors did to yours. For the common good, of course. Just point me to the train cars; I won't resist.
It's not what I call it. It's what its implementers and defenders call it. And if it is not a tax, it is unconstitutional. So, please convince our Supreme Court that it isn't a tax.
Hi there, NoImNotNineVolt. Although I'm sure we have very different view on this issue, I'm glad you are asking intelligent questions. Much better than the ones above and below you.
As for the "better outcomes" in other countries, you have to be more specific. If you mean "longer life expectancy", there are several causes of it being lower in the US. The first that comes to mind is our murder rate, which ends many lives at a young age. One kid dying at age 15 cancels out a dozen living 5 years past our life expectancy. I would like to see what removing the murder victims does to the life expectancy figures.
Tied into that, but also a concern on its own, is the obesity rate in the US. We are way too fat and lazy in this country. I'm part of that myself, but on the low end of the bulge. The number of people who have conditions tied to their obesity is horrible. But we can't exactly force them to eat right and go jogging.
As to whether whether a nationalized health plan not covering some treatments is comparable to a lifetime cap on insurance payout, I honestly don't know what the comparison would be. But a factor you have to consider is that many people have the so-called Cadillac plans with such high caps, they never reach them. Possible some have no caps at all, but I don't know the details of high end plans. In the national systems that don't cover high-priced treatments, no one gets them because they don't exist. So unless they have money to pay for it themselves, or have a high price supplemental insurance plan, the people who need the treatment don't get it. Maybe it's all equal in the end, but it seems like either system limits the options of the non-wealthy. In which case, I would rather have the freedom to choose my own level of coverage, rather than the politicians and bureaucrats. Even if it means I take greater risk overall.
With all that said, I think a much better plan would be to have the same system we had before, and simply have the people who are "uninsurable" get coverage through the federal government. This would keep it off the states' books, while covering the ones who need it. I'm sure there's issues that would need to be worked out, but it would have been easier and less disruptive than Obamacare.
Anyhow, again, good questions. Thanks for your response.
If you feel that insurance is a "personal choice" then shouldn't the flip side be true ... the doctors have a "personal choice" whether you should be treated or not based upon the fact you cannot pay for their services?
Yes, that's exactly what I think.
I also think a black business owner can refuse to hire or serve white people. I also believe a person can swear and call people bad names without being sued. And I believe a devoutly religious person can fire someone who doesn't follow their faith, or an atheist can fire someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky. Basically, I cannot force you to take my money to pay for your goods or services, and you can't force me to do so either. I also cannot force you to give me your money for my goods or services, and you can't force me to give you my money.
I know that sounds evil and whatnot nowadays, but that is what I consider basic human freedom. If you think otherwise, I have a bridge I'll sell you, and you don't have a choice in the matter.
The idea behind insurance is that it is a personal choice to have it or not. Now it's just a tax that unfairly impacts young healthy people.
This is only your perception because you lived in a country that historically had a bad health care system.
Insurance is certainly not a tax.
You are an idiot. The only reason Obamacare was ruled Constitutional was because the administration argued it is a tax. If it isn't a tax, it is null and void.
The problem there is you are conflating "health care" and "health insurance". Socialized healthcare costs what it costs, which is no more than the money the government puts towards it. If something would cost more, the government decides if they pay for it or not. They also have the full weight of the government, and its purse, to keep the system going. If, in the future, they want to expand coverage more, they can also raise taxes, or charge a fee, or limit spending in other government areas, to get the extra funds needed for the new service.
In contrast, a company that offers health insurance has to charge enough now to cover future costs. At any given time, they have to have enough cash to cover likely costs, but they also have to have enough of a cushion to cover unexpectedly higher costs. If they don't do that, any crisis may bankrupt them. So, now that they have no lifetime cap, they have to budget for much higher potential costs than they used to budget for. Also, Obamacare forces them to cover more procedures, with every plan they offer. So, they have to raise their monthly premium to cover this increased future liability as well.
Wow, that's insightful. So the whole liberal rant about people being bankrupted by medical bills is a lie. Is that what you are saying? Because that is what your words are saying.
Here's a note from your fellow liberals: Shut up you dork, you are giving them talking points to fight our talking points.
Sure, steam is harmless, isn't it?
The law makes it illegal to sell certain types of insurance, and they're forced to sell you prepackaged insurance similar to the way cable companies package channels.
Yes, the law forbids selling insurance plans with fixed "lifetime caps." Especially those where the payout cap is less than the cost of many major treatments. Now, some people may argue that people who signed up for those very low cost programs did so with full knowledge that their "coverage" wouldn't actually pay their bills, and I'm sure the commissioned sales agents went out of their way to explain this risk, but it sure does seem like a short road to fraud.
Insurance Plan A: High copay, low lifetime cap, very low monthly premium
Insurance Plan B: Moderate copay, moderate lifetime cap, low monthly premium
Insurance Plan C: Low copay, high lifetime cap, moderate monthly premium
Insurance Plan D: No copay, extremely high lifetime cap, high monthly premium
Insurance Plan E: High copay, no lifetime cap, exorbitant monthly premium
Insurance Plan F: Moderate copay, no lifetime cap, exorbitant monthly premium
Insurance Plan G: No copay, no lifetime cap, exorbitant monthly premium
Everyone who wanted to save money on their monthly bills, at the risk of catastrophic loss, could have chosen from Plans A or B. This would be ideal for young adults just starting out, who have very low risk of cancer, heart disease, or failing organs.
As people get into a career, (professional, union, independent, whatever) they could move into the higher insurance categories such as Plan C or D. Families may choose Plan C specifically, in case a child does have a high-cost condition.
But now, plans A-D are being shut down, and everyone is being forced to buy Plan E, F or G. Notice what those plans have in common.
ACA also bans policies with "preexisting condition" clauses.
Which is the other main reason the future insurance plans will have exorbitant monthly premiums.
Those policies allowed insurance companies to offer substantial discounts to customers who could prove they were healthy and unlikely to actually need anything but trauma care. Unfortunately, they did so by punishing people with genetic predispositions or family history of certain diseases with extremely high premiums. Insurance is about spreading the cost of unusual but expensive events across a large pool of people - essentially averaging the cost and risk - and biasing the cost towards those with the most risk is certainly a legitimate strategy. On the other hand, it seems "unfair" to subject certain people to 3x or 4x insurance premiums just because of who their parents are.
Do you keep full insurance on a 20-year-old Buick? Especially insurance that covers every mechanical and electrical system in the car? If you did have such coverage, would you expect to pay the same as the guy that has basic coverage? It may seem unfair to base insurance rates on people's likelihood (damn, that's a hard word to make my fingers type) of future, or even immediate, use of such insurance, but that is truly what insurance is.
So, yeah, people who were paying for "scam" health insurance are going to have to get "real" health insurance, and real coverage costs more. Likewise, the hordes of healthy, unemployed young people are going to have to pay a little more (or stay on their parents' plan) to reduce the costs to the few really sick people. But that's the whole idea behind insurance.
No, that's the whole idea behind Obamacare. The idea behind insurance is that it is a personal choice to have it or not. Now it's just a tax that unfairly impacts young healthy people.
I wonder if the phone companies have 800-382-5968 blacklisted.
It can't be a simple coincidence that the obamacare phone number is that exact string, except with a blank after the first digit.
Like the cop shows always say, there is no such thing as a coincidence.
If pharmacies have ACA phamplets, do I find ACA pamphlets in parking lots? ;^)
Well, killfixx apparently has a computer, but knows many families who don't. So, he is just getting by, but can afford a cheap computer. The other families probably have children, and put their meager paycheck into food, clothing, and other essentials, which doesn't include computers.
Alternatively, he is reading and posting while at work, and doesn't actually own a computer himself. This is less likely than the assumption above.
"they would have kittens."
Cool. I like kittens. I'll take a calico, a couple tiger-stripes, and one fluffy white one for my daughter.
Why would you presume that is what he meant? Especially since his response to my post was "I didn't know that."
I haven't seen anyone posting about "the minority Republicans" who mean that the Republicans only received 46.9% of the vote, except is responses like yours. So, no, I reject the argument that the use of the phrase "the minority" to describe the Republicans in the House is anything other than Democrat propaganda, which has been supported by the media where I've heard it repeated uncritically, and is now used by people such as Howitzer86 above without realizing its erroneous nature.
As far as how many votes and seats the Republicans lost in 2012, a lot of that is due to two factors. President Obama was on the ballot, and brought out people who stayed home the previous cycle. And Mitt Romney was on the ballot, which didn't bring out a mass of conservatives to swell the Republicans' numbers. But of the Republicans who did win the election, many ran on the promise to oppose Obamacare and greater debt, and that is what their constituents voted for. Why shouldn't they "represent the will of the people" who put them there as their representatives?
Actually, a big problem is using the term "minority" to mean Republicans, when they are the majority party in the House. Comparing them to the Democrats, who hold fewer elected seats in Washington, "minority" is not correct.
Yeah, but "lesbian free chat" is probably the high point of this discussion so far.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate it when I'm in a chat room with my bros, talking about manly things like football and washing cars, and a group of lesbians join in. Acting like they are as macho as us men are. Hell, they don't even want to run around with a bunch of sweaty men throwing their balls around. And their take on a bikini or topless car was is enough to turn your stomach. Or would, if you aren't as manly as us men are.
So, in conclusion, I am glad there are chat rooms now that are lesbian free. It's just more natural that way.