Pre-existing conditions coverage

[The Rabbi]

Now you are really dumbing it down:

Let's take a look at your Op:




You asked the question about who pays when they do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

I don't know what "stage" of question this is for you but you have now dodged it a couple of times.

Damn did I call it or what? You are unable to read a sentence and draw reasonable conclusions from it. You are literally too stupid to debate.

That's right. When an ideologue get stumped then they just respond with personal attacks. However, a personal attack is another way of checking out of the debate and declaring surrender.

Seems like you can only defend the question you asked in your Op when it is in a right wing ideological vacuum.

You asked the question about who pays when people with pre-existing conditions do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

Yeah, repeating your mistake is still a mistake. You want to start a thread about people who dont get covered, go right ahead. But not here in my thread.
Either respond to the OP or shut your face, lo-lo.

 

[bluesman]

Damn did I call it or what? You are unable to read a sentence and draw reasonable conclusions from it. You are literally too stupid to debate.

That's right. When an ideologue get stumped then they just respond with personal attacks. However, a personal attack is another way of checking out of the debate and declaring surrender.

Seems like you can only defend the question you asked in your Op when it is in a right wing ideological vacuum.

You asked the question about who pays when people with pre-existing conditions do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

Yeah, repeating your mistake is still a mistake. You want to start a thread about people who dont get covered, go right ahead. But not here in my thread.
Either respond to the OP or shut your face, lo-lo.

When you buy the forum then you can be an online totalitarian idiot dictator. However, right now you are just stumped.

Here is your Op again:

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.

You brought up people with "pre-existing conditions"

Then you brought up the cost of their "higher risk". That only comes into play when they get treatment. Then you said you were going to take beyond "stage one". Your thread is about "who is going to pay?". All I am asking you to do is take yourself out of the right wing ideological vacuum for just a moment and engage your brain. When people who were denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions ended up needing treatment and going to the emergency room, then they were uninsured but still received treatment. That means that the cost of their treatment was absorbed by the hospital and became a cost of doing business that was passed along in the form of higher insurance premiums for the people who did have insurance. Why is it a bad thing that the people with pre-existing conditions pay something instead of paying nothing? If you are stumped by this question then just go with another personal attack.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That's right. When an ideologue get stumped then they just respond with personal attacks. However, a personal attack is another way of checking out of the debate and declaring surrender.

Seems like you can only defend the question you asked in your Op when it is in a right wing ideological vacuum.

You asked the question about who pays when people with pre-existing conditions do get coverage, I am simply asking about the alternative; If they don't get coverage, then as you asked in your OP, "who pays" for their treatment when they remain uninsured and show up at the emergency room?

Yeah, repeating your mistake is still a mistake. You want to start a thread about people who dont get covered, go right ahead. But not here in my thread.
Either respond to the OP or shut your face, lo-lo.

When you buy the forum then you can be an online totalitarian idiot dictator. However, right now you are just stumped.

Here is your Op again:

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.

You brought up people with "pre-existing conditions"

Then you brought up the cost of their "higher risk". That only comes into play when they get treatment. Then you said you were going to take beyond "stage one". Your thread is about "who is going to pay?". All I am asking you to do is take yourself out of the right wing ideological vacuum for just a moment and engage your brain. When people who were denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions ended up needing treatment and going to the emergency room, then they were uninsured but still received treatment. That means that the cost of their treatment was absorbed by the hospital and became a cost of doing business that was passed along in the form of higher insurance premiums for the people who did have insurance. Why is it a bad thing that the people with pre-existing conditions pay something instead of paying nothing? If you are stumped by this question then just go with another personal attack.

Fail. No wonder you can't answer his question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Somehow, liberals think that you can charge next to nothing and give people insurance coverage that will pay for extremely expensive surgeries and sicknesses.

The problem is that overall, the sick people will buy that insurance. The healthy young people will not. So the sick people are the only ones paying premiums. And they are the ones collecting all the benefits and the cost has to increase. Otherwise, the Insurance companies cannot make money. That is what they are in business for, to make money. If I owned a business and the governemnt made me operate it so that I lost money, I would close up shop.

again, that's why there is a mandate... .to spread the cost among everyone, including young, healthy people.

Hey there!
Take a break from scrubbing your urinal and answer me this:
By what sound argument are the young and healthy responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, repeating your mistake is still a mistake. You want to start a thread about people who dont get covered, go right ahead. But not here in my thread.
Either respond to the OP or shut your face, lo-lo.

When you buy the forum then you can be an online totalitarian idiot dictator. However, right now you are just stumped.

Here is your Op again:

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.

You brought up people with "pre-existing conditions"

Then you brought up the cost of their "higher risk". That only comes into play when they get treatment. Then you said you were going to take beyond "stage one". Your thread is about "who is going to pay?". All I am asking you to do is take yourself out of the right wing ideological vacuum for just a moment and engage your brain. When people who were denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions ended up needing treatment and going to the emergency room, then they were uninsured but still received treatment. That means that the cost of their treatment was absorbed by the hospital and became a cost of doing business that was passed along in the form of higher insurance premiums for the people who did have insurance. Why is it a bad thing that the people with pre-existing conditions pay something instead of paying nothing? If you are stumped by this question then just go with another personal attack.

Fail. No wonder you can't answer his question.

You see the lack of intellectual integrity and ability right there? He puts in his own suppositions and they suddenly sprout into "facts" and he carries it away back to what he really wants to say in a chain of error and ignorance.
That's why I say he is literally too stupid to debate. You could not untangle that garbage and refocus him on the topic if you tried. Wanna see?

OK, we aren't concerned here with people who were denied because htey had PECs. We are concerned with what happens when insurers are forced to cover PECs without being able to charge appropriately. The entire burden gets "socialized" onto other policyholders, even though they get no benefit for it. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow insurers simply to issue high risk policies to people with higher risk?

 

[Care4all]

Somehow, liberals think that you can charge next to nothing and give people insurance coverage that will pay for extremely expensive surgeries and sicknesses.

The problem is that overall, the sick people will buy that insurance. The healthy young people will not. So the sick people are the only ones paying premiums. And they are the ones collecting all the benefits and the cost has to increase. Otherwise, the Insurance companies cannot make money. That is what they are in business for, to make money. If I owned a business and the governemnt made me operate it so that I lost money, I would close up shop.

again, that's why there is a mandate... .to spread the cost among everyone, including young, healthy people.

Hey there!
Take a break from scubbing your urinal and answer me this:
By what sound argument are the young and healthy responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick?

Since the beginning of humanity, the younger and healthier have been taking care of the old and sick....emotionally and financially....it is a tenant of humanity itself.

We all participate in paying for the healthcare of the old and sick from the day we get our first paycheck here in America with paying Medicare taxes....for the hope and prayer and understanding that the younger and healthier in society will then pay for us, when we are old and sick....

Every person on this earth that is healthy and has health insurance coverage is paying for the sick and unhealthy in their own insurance pool.

The healthy taking care of the sick, either financially or hands on (in person) will never end M14, as it should be the 'healthy's' responsibility to take care of the sick and the elderly....who else?

 

[The Rabbi]

again, that's why there is a mandate... .to spread the cost among everyone, including young, healthy people.

Hey there!
Take a break from scubbing your urinal and answer me this:
By what sound argument are the young and healthy responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick?

Since the beginning of humanity, the younger and healthier have been taking care of the old and sick....emotionally and financially....it is a tenant of humanity itself.

We all participate in paying for the healthcare of the old and sick from the day we get our first paycheck here in America with paying Medicare taxes....for the hope and prayer and understanding that the younger and healthier in society will then pay for us, when we are old and sick....

Every person on this earth that is healthy and has health insurance coverage is paying for the sick and unhealthy in their own insurance pool.

The healthy taking care of the sick, either financially or hands on (in person) will never end M14, as it should be the 'healthy's' responsibility to take care of the sick and the elderly....who else?

So basically from those who can afford it to those who need it? Is that the idea?

 

[bluesman]

When you buy the forum then you can be an online totalitarian idiot dictator. However, right now you are just stumped.

Here is your Op again:




You brought up people with "pre-existing conditions"

Then you brought up the cost of their "higher risk". That only comes into play when they get treatment. Then you said you were going to take beyond "stage one". Your thread is about "who is going to pay?". All I am asking you to do is take yourself out of the right wing ideological vacuum for just a moment and engage your brain. When people who were denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions ended up needing treatment and going to the emergency room, then they were uninsured but still received treatment. That means that the cost of their treatment was absorbed by the hospital and became a cost of doing business that was passed along in the form of higher insurance premiums for the people who did have insurance. Why is it a bad thing that the people with pre-existing conditions pay something instead of paying nothing? If you are stumped by this question then just go with another personal attack.[/QUOTE]

Fail. No wonder you can't answer his question.

You see the lack of intellectual integrity and ability right there? He puts in his own suppositions and they suddenly sprout into "facts" and he carries it away back to what he really wants to say in a chain of error and ignorance.
That's why I say he is literally too stupid to debate. You could not untangle that garbage and refocus him on the topic if you tried. Wanna see?

OK, we aren't concerned here with people who were denied because htey had PECs. We are concerned with what happens when insurers are forced to cover PECs without being able to charge appropriately. The entire burden gets "socialized" onto other policyholders, even though they get no benefit for it. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow insurers simply to issue high risk policies to people with higher risk?

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution, Congress passed the law and the president signed it. The people who opposed the law challenged it and the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying it was constitutional. With you self proclaimed beyond "stage one" thinking, you should be able to figure out that the general idea behind the "Affordable Care Act" is to make healthcare "affordable". The higher risk policies are not as "affordable".

 

[M14 Shooter]

again, that's why there is a mandate... .to spread the cost among everyone, including young, healthy people.

Hey there!
Take a break from scubbing your urinal and answer me this:
By what sound argument are the young and healthy responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick?

Since the beginning of humanity, the younger and healthier have been taking care of the old and sick....emotionally and financially....it is a tenant of humanity itself.

Ah. A moral argument.
Who are you to impose your morality upon others?

 

[The Rabbi]

You see the lack of intellectual integrity and ability right there? He puts in his own suppositions and they suddenly sprout into "facts" and he carries it away back to what he really wants to say in a chain of error and ignorance.
That's why I say he is literally too stupid to debate. You could not untangle that garbage and refocus him on the topic if you tried. Wanna see?

OK, we aren't concerned here with people who were denied because htey had PECs. We are concerned with what happens when insurers are forced to cover PECs without being able to charge appropriately. The entire burden gets "socialized" onto other policyholders, even though they get no benefit for it. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow insurers simply to issue high risk policies to people with higher risk?

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution, Congress passed the law and the president signed it. The people who opposed the law challenged it and the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying it was constitutional. With you self proclaimed beyond "stage one" thinking, you should be able to figure out that the general idea behind the "Affordable Care Act" is to make healthcare "affordable". The higher risk policies are not as "affordable".

You see: total inability to focus on the questions, so he falls back on obvious points.

The policies that offer more coverage are in effect high risk policies, because the cover more so there is less financial risk to the policyholder. How affordable are those policies? The answer is not very.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey there!
Take a break from scubbing your urinal and answer me this:
By what sound argument are the young and healthy responsible for the health care costs of the old and sick?

Since the beginning of humanity, the younger and healthier have been taking care of the old and sick....emotionally and financially....it is a tenant of humanity itself.

Ah. A moral argument.
Who are you to impose your morality upon others?

Society usually. God or gods on other occasions, the voice of society often enough.

When something works out, honor your parents for instance, we write it down and ascribe it to God or gods. Works like a charm usually.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You see the lack of intellectual integrity and ability right there? He puts in his own suppositions and they suddenly sprout into "facts" and he carries it away back to what he really wants to say in a chain of error and ignorance.
That's why I say he is literally too stupid to debate. You could not untangle that garbage and refocus him on the topic if you tried. Wanna see?

OK, we aren't concerned here with people who were denied because htey had PECs. We are concerned with what happens when insurers are forced to cover PECs without being able to charge appropriately. The entire burden gets "socialized" onto other policyholders, even though they get no benefit for it. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow insurers simply to issue high risk policies to people with higher risk?

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution...

The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You may have slept through it but we had an election and Obama campaigned on Obamacare. It is called the "Affordable Care Act". As outlined in the constitution...

The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?

The same one that gave it the power to deal with air traffic control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since the beginning of humanity, the younger and healthier have been taking care of the old and sick....emotionally and financially....it is a tenant of humanity itself.

Ah. A moral argument.
Who are you to impose your morality upon others?

Society usually. God or gods on other occasions, the voice of society often enough.
When something works out, honor your parents for instance, we write it down and ascribe it to God or gods. Works like a charm usually.

Not sure how this answers my question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?

The same one that gave it the power to deal with air traffic control.

IOW... you know you cannot cite said clause.
Funny then, your reference to the constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The same one that gave it the power to deal with air traffic control.

IOW... you know you cannot cite said clause.
Funny then, your reference to the constitution.

His, not mine. I'm just pointing out how stupid your question is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

IOW... you know you cannot cite said clause.
Funny then, your reference to the constitution.

His, not mine. I'm just pointing out how stupid your question is.

Except that it isn't - as evidenced by your inability to answer it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ah. A moral argument.
Who are you to impose your morality upon others?

Society usually. God or gods on other occasions, the voice of society often enough.
When something works out, honor your parents for instance, we write it down and ascribe it to God or gods. Works like a charm usually.

Not sure how this answers my question.

The Society you live in has its own Morality, which it imposes. That is where the morality of others that you believe is being imposed upon you comes from from, and it is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Society usually. God or gods on other occasions, the voice of society often enough.
When something works out, honor your parents for instance, we write it down and ascribe it to God or gods. Works like a charm usually.

Not sure how this answers my question.

The Society you live in has its own Morality, which it imposes.

Ok... and how does that answer my question?
Who is -anyone- to impose their version morality on others?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

His, not mine. I'm just pointing out how stupid your question is.

Except that it isn't - as evidenced by your inability to answer it.

It's a "Why are we here" question. Congress has never been required to do only what the Constitution makes direct reference to. In this case it is working on the health and safety of American citizens. That's in its job description, from the Constitution. That's all that it needs.