I do not like executive orders

[Fenton Lum]

It's not how our system is supposed to work - but both houses are basically useless.
Same with Obama, the only way a President can move anything forward without months and months or even years of party bickering, watering down or tacking on $10 billion in pork projects is executive orders.

There's an alternative to both congressional statutes and EOs. Do nothing. The feds should have never gotten into health insurance. The constitution says they are not allowed to anyway. THINK

The constitution says we must have the shittiest, most expensive, most inefficient health"care" system on the planet amongst advanced post industrial nations?

Exactly why we need to get government out of healthcare as much as possible.

Every time government increases its reach into healthcare, things get worse. And for some reason beyond all fathoming, liberals then scream for MOAR government!

Sure, concentrated corporate wealth and power should run it.

 

[g5000]

It's not how our system is supposed to work - but both houses are basically useless.
Same with Obama, the only way a President can move anything forward without months and months or even years of party bickering, watering down or tacking on $10 billion in pork projects is executive orders.

There's an alternative to both congressional statutes and EOs. Do nothing. The feds should have never gotten into health insurance. The constitution says they are not allowed to anyway. THINK

The constitution says we must have the shittiest, most expensive, most inefficient health"care" system on the planet amongst advanced post industrial nations?

Exactly why we need to get government out of healthcare as much as possible.

Every time government increases its reach into healthcare, things get worse. And for some reason beyond all fathoming, liberals then scream for MOAR government!

Sure, concentrated corporate wealth and power should run it.

Works pretty well for all other forms of insurance.

Car insurance has been going down while the cost of cars has been rising.

How's that heavy government interference in the health insurance market working out for you?

 

[g5000]

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This particular order relieves the abuse of the government's overreach into my healthcare.

What overreach? Can I ask how you believe insurance in general works. This EO seems to want to create 2 parallel markets. One cheaper one that includes healthy people and one that will become unfavorable to a significant segment of the population. A segment that will include a lot of grandpa's.

I am not going to relitigate the merits Obamacare again.

But i will say if Obamacare flops quicker as a result of this EO, good. That bill should have never become law.

Even if that's true,calling for health insurance to fail is cynical to say the least, considering the bottom line of that equation is human lives. And I don't ask you to re-litigate ACA, I'm asking you to make your point as to how this EO makes it better. A valid question since you started this OP because you like it. I gave you the basic problem. It is an EO designed to create 2 different markets, one cheap one and one expensive one for the age group you belong too. So make your case please?

It makes it better because it removes it as a requirement. Why should I, a healthy person, be forced to pay more because someone else is unhealthy?

Because that's how insurance works. Insurance is there to insure yourself against UNFORESEEN expenses. They calculate a risk and then let the entire pool of people pay a certain amount so that regardless of circumstances everybody is covered. Like I mentioned you as an older person are at a higher risk for health problems. A risk that is covered by healthier people paying in too the plan too. The whole idea that one should only pay for their current health status is fundamentally flawed.

Except Obamacare put everyone in the same pool thus eliminating different risk pools.
After Obamacare went into effect my premiums rose 3 fold. There is no rationale you can offer that will ever get me support that catastrophic disaster.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it hard to support ANY EO that abuses power.

This particular order relieves the abuse of the government's overreach into my healthcare.

What overreach? Can I ask how you believe insurance in general works? This EO seems to want to create 2 parallel markets. One cheaper one that includes healthy people and one that will become unfavorable to a significant segment of the population. A segment that will include a lot of grampa's.

Considering the gramps vote had much higher rates than millennials, be ready for the inevitable.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Car insurance has been going down while the cost of cars has been rising.

Not where i live. Car insurance keeps rising but then, i live in a sanctuary state.

 

[g5000]

I can pick up the telephone and call any auto, home, or life insurance company in the United States.

I can't do that for health insurance.

Trump's EO does not fix that.

Until that happens, Americans will not have the maximum bargaining leverage they need with health insurance companies. And we will continue to be fucked up the ass.

The United States government is the biggest player in the health insurance market, and they get to write the rules for their private sector competitors!

The United States government is preventing you from being able to call any health insurance company you wish.

The United States government, in partnership with labor unions, is forcing you to be a hostage to the single choice offered to you by your employer.


How's that been working for ya?

 

[g5000]

Car insurance has been going down while the cost of cars has been rising.

Not where i live. Car insurance keeps rising but then, i live in a sanctuary state.

I am able to bundle my car insurance with my home and life insurance. This enables me to get discounts. I also get discounts for being a long time customer.

But the United States government is preventing you from being able to do the same with your health insurance.

For some reason, liberals think we need more government in our health care!

 

[irosie91]

For the record, FDR placed Japanese Americans in concentration camps and Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea on an executive order.

Look how well that shit worked out.

FDR was handicapped by a youth spent in the rarefied
atmosphere of a garden party

Kinda like Don in that regard, ain't he.

Zing!

Trump's more like Hoover than FDR, though.

It sure is funny to hear a guy who shits on a golden toilet whining about elites.

how is trump like hoover?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I find it hard to support ANY EO that abuses power.

This particular order relieves the abuse of the government's overreach into my healthcare.

What overreach? Can I ask how you believe insurance in general works? This EO seems to want to create 2 parallel markets. One cheaper one that includes healthy people and one that will become unfavorable to a significant segment of the population. A segment that will include a lot of grampa's.

Considering the gramps vote had much higher rates than millennials, be ready for the inevitable.

Why shouldn't healthy people have protections too? Why must I be preyed upon in a predatory manner to pay for some fat fucks mistakes in life? The guy that ate candy & drank pop instead of proper meals? The fat bastard who never exercised & smoked two packs a day?

Why?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Car insurance has been going down while the cost of cars has been rising.

Not where i live. Car insurance keeps rising but then, i live in a sanctuary state.

I am able to bundle my car insurance with my home and life insurance. This enables me to get discounts. I also get discounts for being a long time customer.

But the United States government is preventing you from being able to do the same with your health insurance.

For some reason, liberals think we need more government in our health care!

If this EO works as intended I will once again be able to pool together with other small business owners in my line of work to spread the risk & lower my costs. I will again be able to provide medical benefits to my employees.

 

[g5000]

For the record, FDR placed Japanese Americans in concentration camps and Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea on an executive order.

Look how well that shit worked out.

FDR was handicapped by a youth spent in the rarefied
atmosphere of a garden party

Kinda like Don in that regard, ain't he.

Zing!

Trump's more like Hoover than FDR, though.

It sure is funny to hear a guy who shits on a golden toilet whining about elites.

how is trump like hoover?

An inexperienced businessman way over his head.

Actually, Hoover had some government experience before becoming President. He was Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce. So even he is up on Trump.

 

[forkup]

What overreach? Can I ask how you believe insurance in general works. This EO seems to want to create 2 parallel markets. One cheaper one that includes healthy people and one that will become unfavorable to a significant segment of the population. A segment that will include a lot of grandpa's.

I am not going to relitigate the merits Obamacare again.

But i will say if Obamacare flops quicker as a result of this EO, good. That bill should have never become law.

Even if that's true,calling for health insurance to fail is cynical to say the least, considering the bottom line of that equation is human lives. And I don't ask you to re-litigate ACA, I'm asking you to make your point as to how this EO makes it better. A valid question since you started this OP because you like it. I gave you the basic problem. It is an EO designed to create 2 different markets, one cheap one and one expensive one for the age group you belong too. So make your case please?

It makes it better because it removes it as a requirement. Why should I, a healthy person, be forced to pay more because someone else is unhealthy?

Because that's how insurance works. Insurance is there to insure yourself against UNFORESEEN expenses. They calculate a risk and then let the entire pool of people pay a certain amount so that regardless of circumstances everybody is covered. Like I mentioned you as an older person are at a higher risk for health problems. A risk that is covered by healthier people paying in too the plan too. The whole idea that one should only pay for their current health status is fundamentally flawed.

Except Obamacare put everyone in the same pool thus eliminating different risk pools.
After Obamacare went into effect my premiums rose 3 fold. There is no rationale you can offer that will ever get me support that catastrophic disaster.

The reason it rose so dramatically is because not everybody bought into the pool. I do sympathize that you had to pay a lot more but you are now claiming to like an EO that shrinks the pool even further by offering a different one for low risk people. While you are most likely in the pool that will get its premiums even hiked up more. You don't like ACA, I get that, if you have to pay about 3 times the amount I don't blame you. It isn't perfect but it would serve you well to first understand the basic principles that make it flawed before looking for ANYTHING different regardless of it having an actual chance of improving your situation.

 

[Avatar4321]

I do not like them Sam I am

 

[Siete]

I am not going to relitigate the merits Obamacare again.

But i will say if Obamacare flops quicker as a result of this EO, good. That bill should have never become law.

Even if that's true,calling for health insurance to fail is cynical to say the least, considering the bottom line of that equation is human lives. And I don't ask you to re-litigate ACA, I'm asking you to make your point as to how this EO makes it better. A valid question since you started this OP because you like it. I gave you the basic problem. It is an EO designed to create 2 different markets, one cheap one and one expensive one for the age group you belong too. So make your case please?

It makes it better because it removes it as a requirement. Why should I, a healthy person, be forced to pay more because someone else is unhealthy?

Because that's how insurance works. Insurance is there to insure yourself against UNFORESEEN expenses. They calculate a risk and then let the entire pool of people pay a certain amount so that regardless of circumstances everybody is covered. Like I mentioned you as an older person are at a higher risk for health problems. A risk that is covered by healthier people paying in too the plan too. The whole idea that one should only pay for their current health status is fundamentally flawed.

Except Obamacare put everyone in the same pool thus eliminating different risk pools.
After Obamacare went into effect my premiums rose 3 fold. There is no rationale you can offer that will ever get me support that catastrophic disaster.

The reason it rose so dramatically is because not everybody bought into the pool. I do sympathize that you had to pay a lot more but you are now claiming to like an EO that shrinks the pool even further by offering a different one for low risk people. While you are most likely in the pool that will get its premiums even hiked up more. You don't like ACA, I get that, if you have to pay about 3 times the amount I don't blame you. It isn't perfect but it would serve you well to first understand the basic principles that make it flawed before looking for ANYTHING different regardless of it having an actual chance of improving your situation.

the nay-sayers dont want to understand it, they understand one thing, and one thing only ... Obama did it ergo they hate it.

end of story.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I am not going to relitigate the merits Obamacare again.

But i will say if Obamacare flops quicker as a result of this EO, good. That bill should have never become law.

Even if that's true,calling for health insurance to fail is cynical to say the least, considering the bottom line of that equation is human lives. And I don't ask you to re-litigate ACA, I'm asking you to make your point as to how this EO makes it better. A valid question since you started this OP because you like it. I gave you the basic problem. It is an EO designed to create 2 different markets, one cheap one and one expensive one for the age group you belong too. So make your case please?

It makes it better because it removes it as a requirement. Why should I, a healthy person, be forced to pay more because someone else is unhealthy?

Because that's how insurance works. Insurance is there to insure yourself against UNFORESEEN expenses. They calculate a risk and then let the entire pool of people pay a certain amount so that regardless of circumstances everybody is covered. Like I mentioned you as an older person are at a higher risk for health problems. A risk that is covered by healthier people paying in too the plan too. The whole idea that one should only pay for their current health status is fundamentally flawed.

Except Obamacare put everyone in the same pool thus eliminating different risk pools.
After Obamacare went into effect my premiums rose 3 fold. There is no rationale you can offer that will ever get me support that catastrophic disaster.

The reason it rose so dramatically is because not everybody bought into the pool. I do sympathize that you had to pay a lot more but you are now claiming to like an EO that shrinks the pool even further by offering a different one for low risk people. While you are most likely in the pool that will get its premiums even hiked up more. You don't like ACA, I get that, if you have to pay about 3 times the amount I don't blame you. It isn't perfect but it would serve you well to first understand the basic principles that make it flawed before looking for ANYTHING different regardless of it having an actual chance of improving your situation.

I dropped out of the system and joined a co-op for medical needs.

With this I may be able to get back in proper & begin offering insurance to my employees.

And you thinking I should have focused on "fixes" for Obamacare is just silly. I have no power over that law and the ones that do have proven themselves inept.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Even if that's true,calling for health insurance to fail is cynical to say the least, considering the bottom line of that equation is human lives. And I don't ask you to re-litigate ACA, I'm asking you to make your point as to how this EO makes it better. A valid question since you started this OP because you like it. I gave you the basic problem. It is an EO designed to create 2 different markets, one cheap one and one expensive one for the age group you belong too. So make your case please?

It makes it better because it removes it as a requirement. Why should I, a healthy person, be forced to pay more because someone else is unhealthy?

Because that's how insurance works. Insurance is there to insure yourself against UNFORESEEN expenses. They calculate a risk and then let the entire pool of people pay a certain amount so that regardless of circumstances everybody is covered. Like I mentioned you as an older person are at a higher risk for health problems. A risk that is covered by healthier people paying in too the plan too. The whole idea that one should only pay for their current health status is fundamentally flawed.

Except Obamacare put everyone in the same pool thus eliminating different risk pools.
After Obamacare went into effect my premiums rose 3 fold. There is no rationale you can offer that will ever get me support that catastrophic disaster.

The reason it rose so dramatically is because not everybody bought into the pool. I do sympathize that you had to pay a lot more but you are now claiming to like an EO that shrinks the pool even further by offering a different one for low risk people. While you are most likely in the pool that will get its premiums even hiked up more. You don't like ACA, I get that, if you have to pay about 3 times the amount I don't blame you. It isn't perfect but it would serve you well to first understand the basic principles that make it flawed before looking for ANYTHING different regardless of it having an actual chance of improving your situation.

the nay-sayers dont want to understand it, they understand one thing, and one thing only ... Obama did it ergo they hate it.

end of story.

What part of it became ridiculously unaffordable do you not understand?
Trying to "understand" the law would have served me as well as trying to understand space flight.

Good grief

 

[forkup]

Even if that's true,calling for health insurance to fail is cynical to say the least, considering the bottom line of that equation is human lives. And I don't ask you to re-litigate ACA, I'm asking you to make your point as to how this EO makes it better. A valid question since you started this OP because you like it. I gave you the basic problem. It is an EO designed to create 2 different markets, one cheap one and one expensive one for the age group you belong too. So make your case please?

It makes it better because it removes it as a requirement. Why should I, a healthy person, be forced to pay more because someone else is unhealthy?

Because that's how insurance works. Insurance is there to insure yourself against UNFORESEEN expenses. They calculate a risk and then let the entire pool of people pay a certain amount so that regardless of circumstances everybody is covered. Like I mentioned you as an older person are at a higher risk for health problems. A risk that is covered by healthier people paying in too the plan too. The whole idea that one should only pay for their current health status is fundamentally flawed.

Except Obamacare put everyone in the same pool thus eliminating different risk pools.
After Obamacare went into effect my premiums rose 3 fold. There is no rationale you can offer that will ever get me support that catastrophic disaster.

The reason it rose so dramatically is because not everybody bought into the pool. I do sympathize that you had to pay a lot more but you are now claiming to like an EO that shrinks the pool even further by offering a different one for low risk people. While you are most likely in the pool that will get its premiums even hiked up more. You don't like ACA, I get that, if you have to pay about 3 times the amount I don't blame you. It isn't perfect but it would serve you well to first understand the basic principles that make it flawed before looking for ANYTHING different regardless of it having an actual chance of improving your situation.

the nay-sayers dont want to understand it, they understand one thing, and one thing only ... Obama did it ergo they hate it.

end of story.

Nah if Grampa's premiums rose threefold I get the aversion. It's wrong to claim nobody is worse of under ACA. The question is what's the general effect. More people are insured but some people have to pay significantly more. It's a hard thing to ask people to ignore their own situation for the common good.

 

[Siete]

It makes it better because it removes it as a requirement. Why should I, a healthy person, be forced to pay more because someone else is unhealthy?

Because that's how insurance works. Insurance is there to insure yourself against UNFORESEEN expenses. They calculate a risk and then let the entire pool of people pay a certain amount so that regardless of circumstances everybody is covered. Like I mentioned you as an older person are at a higher risk for health problems. A risk that is covered by healthier people paying in too the plan too. The whole idea that one should only pay for their current health status is fundamentally flawed.

Except Obamacare put everyone in the same pool thus eliminating different risk pools.
After Obamacare went into effect my premiums rose 3 fold. There is no rationale you can offer that will ever get me support that catastrophic disaster.

The reason it rose so dramatically is because not everybody bought into the pool. I do sympathize that you had to pay a lot more but you are now claiming to like an EO that shrinks the pool even further by offering a different one for low risk people. While you are most likely in the pool that will get its premiums even hiked up more. You don't like ACA, I get that, if you have to pay about 3 times the amount I don't blame you. It isn't perfect but it would serve you well to first understand the basic principles that make it flawed before looking for ANYTHING different regardless of it having an actual chance of improving your situation.

the nay-sayers dont want to understand it, they understand one thing, and one thing only ... Obama did it ergo they hate it.

end of story.

What part of it became ridiculously unaffordable do you not understand?
Trying to "understand" the law would have served me as well as trying to understand space flight.

Good grief

premium increases reached 50-60% long before Obama was even elected, so dont feed me your horseshit.

 

[forkup]

No fixes have been offered, congress is making sure of that. My point is that you still haven't given me a mechanism why this EO is better.