From a friend on FB, re ACA

tekkychick said:
And if you choose to ride a motorcycle and crash it, should I say I don't want my insurance to cover your injuries? Why are you picking and choosing what's covered?

Rateholders was the wrong word - I should have said back to the people who pay for the insurance.
Click to expand...
'

Um...at it's most basic, yes. But that is how insurance companies work....they spread out, statistically, the damage across premiums.

If you dont have health insurance, you should have to PAY all the bills yourself, over time, with loans, whatever. It's called a consequence. (Yes Obamacare is removing this).

Overall health insurance is not the same as 'maternity' coverage, just like vision and dental. You CHOOSE to get pregnant and start a family. You dont CHOOSE to get sick or injured. And if you didnt choose to get pregnant, then pay the cost....dont dump your personal responsibilities on others.

And how are they returning the $ to the policy holders? The people paying for the health care, how?
 
Last edited:
Liberty said:
I guess you have a point to this.

That being said, do you agree with Harry when he said "he would let children die from cancer before he funds the gov't".
Click to expand...

Here's the exchange:

"During a Senate press conference today, CNN's Dana Bash asked Reid if he would support a bill that would reinstate funding to the National Institutes of Health, including a program providing access to clinical trials for children with cancer.

In response, Reid decried the idea that legislators can "pick and choose" which parts of the government should be funded, reiterating his desire for legislation to fully fund the federal government without strings attached.

After that Bash asked, "if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?"

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) responded to her question by asking "why pit one against the other?" and Reid chimed in, "why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own."

In the conservative Free Beacon's write up of the exchange, Schumer's question has not been included, leaving the false impression that Reid is responding to Bash's question about helping a child with cancer. House Speaker John Boehner's website has provided a similarly false transcript of the exchange, including only Bash's question and Reid replying, "Why would we do that?"

Several media conservatives have repeated the Beacon's false version of events.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/02/conservatives-made-it-up-harry-reid-didnt-dismi/196234
 
Taft2016 said:
I didn't say it was possible or impossible. I just said "I saw this on Facebook."

And if Rana would be so kind as to yank that fat cock out of her ass, she would notice I never said I believed it either.

I posted it because this thread was presumably about stuff we're reading on FB about Obamacare.

That said, there are screen captures on the web about this guy's discussion about the incident with his friends. It doesn't look like a troll account, the guy discusses his experience pretty extensively. Just Google a part of the discussion in quotes and you'll find it.

What had me wondering though, was that the fellow quoted said he had a pre-existing condition of diabetes. These are still the same private health insurers who had problems with pre-existing conditions in the past. When I first read it, I Googled the opt-out penalties and didn't notice a separate set of penalties for those with pre-existing conditions, or higher deductibles for pre-existing conditions. I'm wondering if that's the case though.

Also, since each state is setting up the exchanges, I'm wondering if there are glitches in individual systems that can cause results like this. I'm wondering if some states are putting their own opt-out penalty guidelines on their sites. Since the states are running the exchanges, is there anything that prohibits them from expanding penalties?

One thing I know is that we're only two days into the process. People are still having problems signing onto *ONE* exchange. I think it's safe to say nobody has signed onto all 50 exchanges and done a comprehensive comparison.

I tried to look at the New York State exchange to see what that was like, but you have to set up an account. Since I have employer provided health insurance I didn't want to set up an account out of curiosity, do some comparisons, and then get stuck having to explain why I was opting out.
Click to expand...

We're familiar here with the chickenshit posts of some conservatives. Throw out a statement that's full of inaccuracies but don't take a position on it; wait and see which way the wind blows before coming down on one side or the other.

You were just owned so suck it up and move on.
 
Liberty said:
I disagree with that. Gov't doesn't run anything right. More children will get a worse deal with gov't healthcare.

And nobody is asking for the delay of the UACA. Just the mandate, and the medical device tax.
Click to expand...

Come out of your hole and smell reality. A child with cancer, who has no health care will surely die. A child with cancer, who has access to health care, thanks to the ACA, will receive treatment.
Instead of using general slurs, why don't you give examples of what the government is not running correctly?
In case you haven't heard, the GOP are asking for the ACA to be delayed despite the fact that this is day 3 of its activation.
 
Lorca said:
It absolutely sucks. People shouldnt start families if they cant afford the health coverage for them and that includes maternity care. It's a choice, and no way should I be paying for it.

I do object to having to pay for (often) crappy public schools that seem very ineffective and embarrassingly behind other countries. I can see how an 'educated society' helps all society but that can be applied to alot of things and while I understand it, I dont necessarily agree with how its applied.

Not only that, it's a racket. Everyone pays into the maternity coverage....but only a certain percentage of it gets used since not everyone gets pregnant. Where is the rest of that $$$ going? Does anyone even THINK to ask the question?

So tell me again why I have to pay for other people to have kids?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you buy insurance as an individual. As a person who's always had insurance through the workplace, I can guarantee I never had the choice to forgo maternity coverage. The company offered maybe 3-4 options ranging from basic to Cadillac. We aren't able to pick and choose on a line-item basis what we want. My plans always have something I'm not interested in paying for, such as some guy's Viagra scrip. Or how about this. The coverage always includes treatment for addicts... either inpatient or outpatient, plus follow-up visits plus medication. I don't take drugs and drink very little but I have to subsidize those who do one or the other to excess. I can remember an employee who ended up in ER with alcohol poisoning several times, all of it covered on my dime.

Why should my premiums cover addicts, smokers and Viagra? Because the way the system works you have to take the good with the bad.
 
christiefan915 said:
Perhaps you buy insurance as an individual. As a person who's always had insurance through the workplace, I can guarantee I never had the choice to forgo maternity coverage. The company offered maybe 3-4 options ranging from basic to Cadillac. We aren't able to pick and choose on a line-item basis what we want. My plans always have something I'm not interested in paying for, such as some guy's Viagra scrip. Or how about this. The coverage always includes treatment for addicts... either inpatient or outpatient, plus follow-up visits plus medication. I don't take drugs and drink very little but I have to subsidize those who do one or the other to excess. I can remember an employee who ended up in ER with alcohol poisoning several times, all of it covered on my dime.

Why should my premiums cover addicts, smokers and Viagra? Because the way the system works you have to take the good with the bad.
Click to expand...

I've been a long-term employee and a contract worker. I've seen alot of health care plans. If a plan offered maternity care, you could opt out of it. And it was extra if you chose it, naturally. And basic premiums shouldnt cover Viagra either...unless you want to go the route that 'it for their health' in which case it should cover the Pill also because some women take that for their health. Optional is OPTIONAL. Everyone else shouldnt pay for your choices.

And as long as addictions are classified as diseases, it will be hard to exclude them. If you are an alcoholic or addict, IMO, your premiums should be higher. With Obamacare, ok, we wont exclude you on a pre-existing condition but should that also mean you dont have to pay more for something like that? No, they wont (I dont think) But by classifying them as diseases we've removed responsibility.

btw, in the example I gave of the guy trying to find a new health care plan because his company's was changing....it was new for him to see maternity care offered that you couldnt opt out of. That is one of the things the media was spotlighting. Why even break it out if you cant opt out of it? I wonder if a single male would see that on his application and be able to opt out? (Would be interesting to find out)
 
christiefan915 said:
Perhaps you buy insurance as an individual. As a person who's always had insurance through the workplace, I can guarantee I never had the choice to forgo maternity coverage. The company offered maybe 3-4 options ranging from basic to Cadillac. We aren't able to pick and choose on a line-item basis what we want. My plans always have something I'm not interested in paying for, such as some guy's Viagra scrip. Or how about this. The coverage always includes treatment for addicts... either inpatient or outpatient, plus follow-up visits plus medication. I don't take drugs and drink very little but I have to subsidize those who do one or the other to excess. I can remember an employee who ended up in ER with alcohol poisoning several times, all of it covered on my dime.

Why should my premiums cover addicts, smokers and Viagra? Because the way the system works you have to take the good with the bad.
Click to expand...

I agree. I can't pick and choose; I've never been asked about maternity. Legal, vision, dental are extra; but medical is just medical, and you pick if you want the high deductible plan or the other plan.
 
christiefan915 said:
What doesn't make sense is some idiot on FB making up penalties that don't exist in the law and spreading his misinformation throughout the blogosphere.
Click to expand...

because his comment was intended to highlight the fact the OP was about someone on FB making up things that don't exist and spreading misinformation throughout the blogosphere......
 
christiefan915 said:
We're familiar here with the chickenshit posts of some conservatives. Throw out a statement that's full of inaccuracies but don't take a position on it; wait and see which way the wind blows before coming down on one side or the other.

You were just owned so suck it up and move on.
Click to expand...

Interesting. People put words in other peoples' mouths and then say they've owned them.

You libs is nuts.

Try learning how to read and comprehend without your liberal knee jerking all over the forum.
 
Taft2016 said:
Interesting. People put words in other peoples' mouths and then say they've owned them.

You libs is nuts.

Try learning how to read and comprehend without your liberal knee jerking all over the forum.
Click to expand...

No liens, no suspensions, no fines seized from bank accounts. All spelled out clearly in the ACA and available to the public for over three years.

Idiots like "Will Sheehan" and those who accept his words at face value deserve to be called out for their cluelessness.
 
Thing1 said:
Tyranny is a pretty flexible term. I see a pretty small handful of alleged "lawmakers" holding America hostage right now, and trying to withold funding from a democratically approved law/program.
Click to expand...

What a moronic claim; holding America hostage. If arrogant asshats like Obama and Reid really cared about the American sheeple, they would work WITH Republicans not against them.

A majority of Americans were not "for" this legislation. It was passed along straight party lines in a hyper partisan, undemocratic fashion and the idiots who voted for it admitted that they didn't know what was in the bill.

Only brain dead sheeple bleat about Republicans holding American hostage and gleefully cheer for what is obviously a massive train wreck and will cost Americans trillions when it is over.

Dumbasses.
 
kiki said:
Come out of your hole and smell reality. A child with cancer, who has no health care will surely die. A child with cancer, who has access to health care, thanks to the ACA, will receive treatment.
Instead of using general slurs, why don't you give examples of what the government is not running correctly?
In case you haven't heard, the GOP are asking for the ACA to be delayed despite the fact that this is day 3 of its activation.
Click to expand...

Another moronic claim from the moron class of sheeple in this nation; please show some credible evidence where any child in this nation was allowed to die and could not get care before this trainwreck of a moron bill was passed.

You assholes are beyond despicable with your ignorant claims and desperate desire to force all of us to become wards of the state.

Dumbasses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top