Pre-existing conditions coverage

[M14 Shooter]

Please present a sound argument as to why state should force the young and healthy to subsidize the health care costs of the old and sick, and/or as to why the state sholuld force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

You'll have to ask the insurance company lobbyists and the republicans that question.

I accept your concerssion, that you know you cannot present the sound aregument I requested.

Don't feel bad - no one else can either.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You know it would be $1500/mo because? Well you don't. You made the figure up completely.
Most health issues in this country are self inflicted from: bad diet, lack of exercise, excessive drinking, smoking. If we cut out those factors there would be no health care issues to speak of.

Sounds like government intervention time then eh? Make this whole issue go away because no one would get sick. Ban junk food, TV, booze, and smokes, and watch healthcare nirvana arise.

I realize your first impulse is always to reach for the hob nailed boots. But I'm simply stating fact here. Of course if you incentivize people by making them pay for their own decisions then they wont make as many bad ones. Obamacare does the opposite of that: it actually encourages people to engage in behavior that worsens their health because there is no financial penalty for it.

My first impulse is the seek the truth. As a society we allow this level of sloth until it bites us when it has to be paid for later in life. There's a reason Sloth and Gluttony are on the list of Seven Deadly Sins. Now, how many ways can we fix that? The government, as much as you hate it, has a role to play in having a healthy population.

The best health the UK ever had was when it was still under rationing after WWII. They had to move around to get anywhere and their diet wasn't filled with crap. Capitalism is only too happy to let you eat, drink, and smoke yourself to death, society, not so much.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you ever watch higher level debates, the one thing you would never see from a good debater is a personal insult. However, when it comes to weak debaters, they always go to the personal insult. It is correctly considered a sign of weakness and shows an inability on the part of the stumped personal attacker to attack arguments.

The constitution doesn't say anything about airplanes. Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional?

You literally are too stupid to engage.

If you are going to make insults your main thing, then you should at least be creative about and not repeat the same thing over and over. Asking to find a "clause in the constitution" that allows for a "mandate" is about as smart as looking for a clause about airplanes.

I accept your concession, that you know you cannot cite any part of the constitution that gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Please present a sound argument as to why state should force the young and healthy to subsidize the health care costs of the old and sick, and/or as to why the state sholuld force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

You'll have to ask the insurance company lobbyists and the republicans that question.

I accept your concerssion, that you know you cannot present the sound aregument I requetred.

Don't feel bad - no one else can either.

Mr. Why Mommy Why has returned. Oh joy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The biggest problem with insurance companies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions was the fact that in many cases, those conditions existed before the person was ever able to purchase insurance. In some cases such as my own, I was denied coverage after having to move to another state, even though I had paid for insurance for all my life. The reason for mandating coverage is so that everyone is in the pool and pays into that pool. Saying that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions if they have never paid in puts a strain on everyone who has been paying in. That is why the mandate is necessary. Otherwise too many people would just wait until they got sick. Of course it's not that easy. Even now, you must purchase a policy within a given time frame pretty much like open enrollment with your employer. If you miss the open enrollment period, you cannot get a policy until the following year, so if you get cancer or something goes wrong during that time, you will be without coverage.

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

Of course they did - its perfectly reasonable to do so.
You have a right to health care -- you are not, however, entitled to have someone else to pay for it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

Of course they did - its perfectly reasonable to do so.
You have a right to health care -- you are not, however, entitled to have someone else to pay for it.

Right to healthcare? Where'd you find that? Do tell.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sounds like government intervention time then eh? Make this whole issue go away because no one would get sick. Ban junk food, TV, booze, and smokes, and watch healthcare nirvana arise.

I realize your first impulse is always to reach for the hob nailed boots. But I'm simply stating fact here. Of course if you incentivize people by making them pay for their own decisions then they wont make as many bad ones. Obamacare does the opposite of that: it actually encourages people to engage in behavior that worsens their health because there is no financial penalty for it.

My first impulse is the seek the truth. As a society we allow this level of sloth until it bites us when it has to be paid for later in life. There's a reason Sloth and Gluttony are on the list of Seven Deadly Sins. Now, how many ways can we fix that? The government, as much as you hate it, has a role to play in having a healthy population.

The best health the UK ever had was when it was still under rationing after WWII. They had to move around to get anywhere and their diet wasn't filled with crap. Capitalism is only too happy to let you eat, drink, and smoke yourself to death, society, not so much.

Like I said, your first impulse always is to have gov't tell people what to do. At gunpoint preferably. That's why you are a fascist and an America-hater. You're also a lazy fuck, because you wont bother to think up solutions that dont involve infringing on people's freedoms.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I realize your first impulse is always to reach for the hob nailed boots. But I'm simply stating fact here. Of course if you incentivize people by making them pay for their own decisions then they wont make as many bad ones. Obamacare does the opposite of that: it actually encourages people to engage in behavior that worsens their health because there is no financial penalty for it.

My first impulse is the seek the truth. As a society we allow this level of sloth until it bites us when it has to be paid for later in life. There's a reason Sloth and Gluttony are on the list of Seven Deadly Sins. Now, how many ways can we fix that? The government, as much as you hate it, has a role to play in having a healthy population.

The best health the UK ever had was when it was still under rationing after WWII. They had to move around to get anywhere and their diet wasn't filled with crap. Capitalism is only too happy to let you eat, drink, and smoke yourself to death, society, not so much.

Like I said, your first impulse always is to have gov't tell people what to do. At gunpoint preferably. That's why you are a fascist and an America-hater. You're also a lazy fuck, because you wont bother to think up solutions that dont involve infringing on people's freedoms.

That kind of freedom cost me money. Maybe I don't want to pay for your fat lazy ass? Isn't that what you always say?

 

[The Rabbi]

My first impulse is the seek the truth. As a society we allow this level of sloth until it bites us when it has to be paid for later in life. There's a reason Sloth and Gluttony are on the list of Seven Deadly Sins. Now, how many ways can we fix that? The government, as much as you hate it, has a role to play in having a healthy population.

The best health the UK ever had was when it was still under rationing after WWII. They had to move around to get anywhere and their diet wasn't filled with crap. Capitalism is only too happy to let you eat, drink, and smoke yourself to death, society, not so much.

Like I said, your first impulse always is to have gov't tell people what to do. At gunpoint preferably. That's why you are a fascist and an America-hater. You're also a lazy fuck, because you wont bother to think up solutions that dont involve infringing on people's freedoms.

That kind of freedom cost me money. Maybe I don't want to pay for your fat lazy ass? Isn't that what you always say?

Since you've probably never paid for anything in your life, you shouldn't worry.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Like I said, your first impulse always is to have gov't tell people what to do. At gunpoint preferably. That's why you are a fascist and an America-hater. You're also a lazy fuck, because you wont bother to think up solutions that dont involve infringing on people's freedoms.

That kind of freedom cost me money. Maybe I don't want to pay for your fat lazy ass? Isn't that what you always say?

Since you've probably never paid for anything in your life, you shouldn't worry.

I've paid a lot kid. That happens if you live long enough. And don't spin away, answer the question. When your "freedom" hits my pocketbook, then what?

 

[The Rabbi]

That kind of freedom cost me money. Maybe I don't want to pay for your fat lazy ass? Isn't that what you always say?

Since you've probably never paid for anything in your life, you shouldn't worry.

I've paid a lot kid. That happens if you live long enough. And don't spin away, answer the question. When your "freedom" hits my pocketbook, then what?

Then you can move to North Korea if it really bothers you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since you've probably never paid for anything in your life, you shouldn't worry.

I've paid a lot kid. That happens if you live long enough. And don't spin away, answer the question. When your "freedom" hits my pocketbook, then what?

Then you can move to North Korea if it really bothers you.

Sweden. Come on big man, answer the question? You think the lifestyle choices Americans on their fat asses make doesn't affect anyone but themselves? You're wrong. Put my money where your mouth is and answer the question.

 

[dnsmith35]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

I think the simple solution is to let the government insure those with pre-existing conditions with Medicaid with the insured paying a premium for that coverage. Let the insurance companies do business in a way commensurate with good business plans.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

I think the simple solution is to let the government insure those with pre-existing conditions with Medicaid with the insured paying a premium for that coverage. Let the insurance companies do business in a way commensurate with good business plans.

That would make too much sense.
But why should people with pre existing conditions need to go with Medicaid? I can see in some circumstances there are some people who might be uninsurable. But in many cases a pre existing condition, like Downs, does allow for proper pricing for a policy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

I think the simple solution is to let the government insure those with pre-existing conditions with Medicaid with the insured paying a premium for that coverage. Let the insurance companies do business in a way commensurate with good business plans.

Now there's a little common sense. About the first I've seen today.

 

[Rocko]

It sounds nice that people who have preexisting conditions aren't denied coverage, but why should someone who costs more to insure pay the same premium as someone with no preexisting condition?

 

[dnsmith35]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

I think the simple solution is to let the government insure those with pre-existing conditions with Medicaid with the insured paying a premium for that coverage. Let the insurance companies do business in a way commensurate with good business plans.

That would make too much sense.
But why should people with pre existing conditions need to go with Medicaid? I can see in some circumstances there are some people who might be uninsurable. But in many cases a pre existing condition, like Downs, does allow for proper pricing for a policy.

Thus take pre-existing conditions out of the realm of private insurance and cover them with Medicaid, or if they can afford it, Medicare. I personally believe we would have been better off without ACA had we simply covered everyone currently not covered with Medicaid and bill their company just like we do for FICA as a % of their wage split with the employee. In the case of companies which are not sufficiently profitable, let the gov. paid for it. ACA is just going to cost a lot of unnecessary money.

 

[dnsmith35]

It sounds nice that people who have preexisting conditions aren't denied coverage, but why should someone who costs more to insure pay the same premium as someone with no preexisting condition?

Its called "spread the risk."

 

[dnsmith35]

Please present a sound argument as to why state should force the young and healthy to subsidize the health care costs of the old and sick, and/or as to why the state sholuld force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

You'll have to ask the insurance company lobbyists and the republicans that question.

I accept your concerssion, that you know you cannot present the sound aregument I requested.

Don't feel bad - no one else can either.

There is no sound argument supporting just letting the well get by, because even the well can have an accident. Everyone should pay for Medicaid if they don't have private insurance, but then they have to get along with Medicaid level coverage.

BTW, the M-14 with a noise suppressor was an adequate long range weapon. Not quite as good as the bolt action sniper rifle, but still good to 500 yards.

 

[Rocko]

It sounds nice that people who have preexisting conditions aren't denied coverage, but why should someone who costs more to insure pay the same premium as someone with no preexisting condition?

Its called "spread the risk."

You mean spread the cost, which isn't fair, considering the ones that are at risk to be sick are the ones that are more Likely to get claims.