Repeal or replace?

Freddy Figbottom said:
fuck lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Why, my fren?

Freddy Figbottom said:
and IS fraud to deny good claims as a matter of internal secret policy.
Click to expand...

We have courts to pursue fraud.

In the United States, health insurers are required by law to make their medical necessity criteria and claim approval policies publicly available.

If policyholders fail to read and understand the terms of conditions that they agree to when they enroll, whose fault is that?
 
Diogenes said:
Why, my fren?



We have courts to pursue fraud.

In the United States, health insurers are required by law to make their medical necessity criteria and claim approval policies publicly available.

If policyholders fail to read and understand the terms of conditions that they agree to when they enroll, whose fault is that?
Click to expand...
because fuck lobbyists.

often times courts look the other way when large businesses are committing crimes.

it's called corruption, polly-anna.

:truestory:
 
Diogenes said:
I'm happy for you, my fren.



You wound me.

Pray, explain?



"Good and evil" are simply societal constructs that people use in an attempt to demonize something they don't agree with, my fren.
Click to expand...
most people disagree with evil, fraud, and human on human predation.

bad people say evil is merely a social construct.

you're evidently a bad person.
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
most people disagree with evil, fraud, and human on human predation.
Click to expand...

Do they?

Freddy Figbottom said:
bad people say evil is merely a social construct. you're evidently a bad person.
Click to expand...

My fren, you have committed two clear logical fallacies, stacked together:
  1. Ad hominem (personal attack)
    It skips any engagement with the actual claim ("evil is a social construct") and instead attacked my character: "you're evidently a bad person." Calling someone "bad" or "evil" isn't an argument; it's name-calling that poisons the well and derails rational discussion.
  2. Guilt by association + hasty generalization
    The leap from "bad people say evil is merely a social construct" → "you say that" → "therefore you're a bad person" is a textbook associative fallacy. It assumes:
    • There exists a monolithic group called "bad people"
    • Every single one of them holds this exact view
    • Anyone who utters the phrase must belong to that group
      That's an unfounded, sloppy generalization that ignores the possibility that decent philosophers, anthropologists, or regular people might question moral realism for non-"evil" reasons.
In short, you're dodging the substance of the issue and instead slapping an imaginary scarlet letter on anyone who disagrees with your assessments.

That's not logic.

I have much I can teach you.

images
 
Diogenes said:
Do they?



My fren, you have committed two clear logical fallacies, stacked together:
  1. Ad hominem (personal attack)
    It skips any engagement with the actual claim ("evil is a social construct") and instead attacked my character: "you're evidently a bad person." Calling someone "bad" or "evil" isn't an argument; it's name-calling that poisons the well and derails rational discussion.
  2. Guilt by association + hasty generalization
    The leap from "bad people say evil is merely a social construct" → "you say that" → "therefore you're a bad person" is a textbook associative fallacy. It assumes:
    • There exists a monolithic group called "bad people"
    • Every single one of them holds this exact view
    • Anyone who utters the phrase must belong to that group
      That's an unfounded, sloppy generalization that ignores the possibility that decent philosophers, anthropologists, or regular people might question moral realism for non-"evil" reasons.
In short, you're dodging the substance of the issue and instead slapping an imaginary scarlet letter on anyone who disagrees with your assessments.

That's not logic.

I have much I can teach you.

images
Click to expand...
bad people are pro-evil.

that's just a fact.

I'm sorry facts make your demon flesh burn.
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
bad people are pro-evil. that's just a fact. I'm sorry facts make your demon flesh burn.
Click to expand...

That reply is pure fallacy soup, my fren.
  1. Circular reasoning / bare assertion
    “Bad people are pro-evil. That’s just a fact.”
    This defines “bad” as “pro-evil” and then uses that definition to prove they’re bad. It’s the logical equivalent of “puppies are cute because they possess the quality of cuteness.”
  2. Kafkatrapping
    The moment you object, your objection is treated as proof that you’re one of the demons. Disagree = your flesh burns = you’re evil. It’s a heads-I-win, tails-you’re-satan trap.
  3. Ad hominem + demonization
    Instead of arguing, you skipped straight to “your demon flesh burn.” That’s not rhetoric; that’s a toddler holding his breath until you admit his imaginary friend is real.
  4. Equivocation on “pro-evil”
    Saying “evil is a social construct” (a meta-ethical position held by millions of non-psychopaths) is deliberately conflated with “I love rape and murder.” That’s like saying “I think ‘beauty’ is subjective” means “I want to set fire to art museums.”
My fren, you just declared that anyone who questions moral realism has ‘demon flesh.’ That’s not an argument; that’s the sound of someone who’s terrified their worldview can’t survive a single paragraph of pushback. I’ll wait while you google ‘Nietzsche’ without crying.
 
Now, back to the topic.
  • Federal law (ACA + CARES Act): Any insurer offering non-grandfathered plans in the individual or small-group market must publish their medical policies, coverage criteria, and drug formularies online in a machine-readable format.
  • NAIC Model Act (adopted by most states): Requires insurers to make “medical necessity guidelines” and “clinical review criteria” available upon request and usually posted on their website.
  • ERISA plans (large employer self-insured plans) must provide the same upon request under DOL rules.
If any potential policyholder fails to avail themselves of this mandatory transparency prior to enrolling and submitting a claim, whose fault is that?
 
Pro tips for finding any insurer’s claim approval policies
  1. Google exactly: site:insurerwebsite.com "medical policy" OR "coverage criteria" OR "clinical guideline"
  2. Check the provider portal → “Policies” or “Resources” section (even if you’re not a provider, they’re public)
  3. If it’s a state Medicaid managed-care plan, they’re usually under state.gov "medicaid" "medical policies"
 
Life is Golden said:
Once single payer is in place, you won't have any of this to worry about. They will decide if you live or die and ration healthcare based on your remaining tax paying years. Read Ezekiel Emanual's (Rahm's brother) works.

Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

food stamps don't mean we have lost choice in grocery stores, does it?

no it doesn't.

it's your precious insurance company cartel that has desperately offered to administrate single payer on behalf of the government.

you're a full of shit insurance company shill.

sorry fascist, you lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top