Simple, honest question on the ACA

[Slade3200]

I'm self employed and have always paid for my own health insurance. I didn't have to change a thing during the whole ACA transition. Kept my same plan and haven't noticed a significant change in rates. I know others have have had problems and others have gotten insurance as a result, but you are not being accurate when you say "The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan"

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

The whole point of insurance is that some people pay for medical needs of others that they will never use. That is what Insurance is. If not then there would be no need for insurance and we would just pay for what we use.

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at some point everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

 

[nat4900]

One of the central features of real insurance is that it's voluntary. If the government forces you to pay for it, then it's welfare.

Well, then, the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation must have been talking about "welfare" when they FIRST proposed a mandate on buying health insurance......Who knew?

 

[bripat9643]

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

The whole point of insurance is that some people pay for medical needs of others that they will never use. That is what Insurance is. If not then there would be no need for insurance and we would just pay for what we use.

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at some point everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

 

[bripat9643]

One of the central features of real insurance is that it's voluntary. If the government forces you to pay for it, then it's welfare.

Well, then, the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation must have been talking about "welfare" when they FIRST proposed a mandate on buying health insurance......Who knew?

Yeah, so what?

 

[Slade3200]

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at somepoint everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

Okay, and what do you suppose would happen to your auto insurance if DumBama passed a law that states all insurance companies have to insure everybody regardless of their record? That would mean they would have to insure that guy with 5 DUI's. They would have to insure that guy that gets speeding tickets every six months or more. They would have to insure that woman that gets into a bad car accident every two years. What do you suppose your rates would be then under AutoBama?

If somebody can't get insured because they are high risk then they can not legally drive. If a person can not get health insurance because of a preexisting condition then should we make it illegal for them to get sick? Is that your logic?

 

[Rustic]

Because it don't work.

Tell the above to the 23 MILLION people who have gotten health insurance because of the ACA.....and then get back to us.

Well, if it works so great why don't they pay for their own shit instead of expecting someone else to pay for their shit...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If somebody can't get insured because they are high risk then they can not legally drive. If a person can not get health insurance because of a preexisting condition then should we make it illegal for them to get sick? Is that your logic?

No, but if that was a big problem, then why not extend Medicare to only those people and leave everybody else alone?

I'll tell you why: and that is Commie Care was never designed to get everybody insured. Commie Care was designed to create as many new government dependents as the Democrats could. Why? Because most government dependents vote Democrat.

 

[Slade3200]

The whole point of insurance is that some people pay for medical needs of others that they will never use. That is what Insurance is. If not then there would be no need for insurance and we would just pay for what we use.

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at some point everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

Why are you dodging my question? Fine people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it, true statement, but in reality many many do... So what happens to our society if a large chunk of new mothers go broke or bankrupt after having a kid?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One of the central features of real insurance is that it's voluntary. If the government forces you to pay for it, then it's welfare.

Well, then, the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation must have been talking about "welfare" when they FIRST proposed a mandate on buying health insurance......Who knew?

The Heritage Foundation is not the Republican politicians or representatives. The Heritage Foundation is the Heritage Foundation.

If Republicans wanted Commie Care first, they had all the opportunity in the world under George Bush. Bush had all Republicans behind him and could have gotten anything passed that he wanted to.

 

[Slade3200]

If somebody can't get insured because they are high risk then they can not legally drive. If a person can not get health insurance because of a preexisting condition then should we make it illegal for them to get sick? Is that your logic?

No, but if that was a big problem, then why not extend Medicare to only those people and leave everybody else alone?

I'll tell you why: and that is Commie Care was never designed to get everybody insured. Commie Care was designed to create as many new government dependents as the Democrats could. Why? Because most government dependents vote Democrat.

Extending Medicare to the poor is your solution? Doesn't that cause the same dependency problems that you complained about in your following line? Also, isn't Medicare going broke? How is adding more people to it going to fix the fiscal problems?

 

[Norman]

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at some point everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

Why are you dodging my question? Fine people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it, true statement, but in reality many many do... So what happens to our society if a large chunk of new mothers go broke or bankrupt after having a kid?

They find decent men to marry, who can provide for them. Something they failed to do on their first attempt.

This will also solve the very significant problem of single motherhood.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True....Obama's greatest mistake in passing something that would place him in the history books, is to cave in to the health care providers' demands to elicit their support.
Want to know why we can't have what the rest of the civilized world already has regarding health care? Look below who warrants such high salaries and will NOT allow for health care to be cheaper and better:

The reason we can't have what the rest of the world has is because of trial lawyers. If government took over healthcare, that would result in very few if any lawsuits for malpractice.

I don't see tort being that much of an issue.

We have states with medical tort limitations today, and it isn't solving anything.

Some of the awards sound large, but there aren't that many, they often get reduced in subsequent court action, and the harm can be far more significant than the award can cover - such as not being able to work, etc.

That is absolutely correct. But the cost is less of the awards than it is defending the accused.

Insurance companies (like any other large company) have the OJ team to protect their interests. These guys are not cheap and litigation could go on for years before any agreement is reached. That's where the cost of malpractice insurance lies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If somebody can't get insured because they are high risk then they can not legally drive. If a person can not get health insurance because of a preexisting condition then should we make it illegal for them to get sick? Is that your logic?

No, but if that was a big problem, then why not extend Medicare to only those people and leave everybody else alone?

I'll tell you why: and that is Commie Care was never designed to get everybody insured. Commie Care was designed to create as many new government dependents as the Democrats could. Why? Because most government dependents vote Democrat.

Extending Medicare to the poor is your solution? Doesn't that cause the same dependency problems that you complained about in your following line? Also, isn't Medicare going broke? How is adding more people to it going to fix the fiscal problems?

I actually though you were talking about preexisting conditions and not the poor. The poor have always been applicable for Medicaid.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at some point everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

Why are you dodging my question? Fine people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it, true statement, but in reality many many do... So what happens to our society if a large chunk of new mothers go broke or bankrupt after having a kid?

They find decent men to marry, who can provide for them. Something they failed to do on their first attempt.

This will also solve the very significant problem of single motherhood.

Your hopes and dreams for this magical event to happen is quite optimistic. But in reality making a single mother or young family broke doesn't help them find a decent person with money to take care of them. Also, don't believe that is a plan that we can count on happening.

 

[Slade3200]

If somebody can't get insured because they are high risk then they can not legally drive. If a person can not get health insurance because of a preexisting condition then should we make it illegal for them to get sick? Is that your logic?

No, but if that was a big problem, then why not extend Medicare to only those people and leave everybody else alone?

I'll tell you why: and that is Commie Care was never designed to get everybody insured. Commie Care was designed to create as many new government dependents as the Democrats could. Why? Because most government dependents vote Democrat.

Extending Medicare to the poor is your solution? Doesn't that cause the same dependency problems that you complained about in your following line? Also, isn't Medicare going broke? How is adding more people to it going to fix the fiscal problems?

I actually though you were talking about preexisting conditions and not the poor. The poor have always been applicable for Medicaid.

I meant to say PC... my bad

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

hey Slade , as i said , get rid of the MANDATE and i don't care what you guys do .

I'm not a fan of the mandate either... But the big question is, how do we pay for it. The mandate was the proposed solution. Drop it and the program collapses and we are back to the shitty system we've had for decades. I'm extremely interested to see what the Republicans come up with

If people want government healthcare, then fine with me, just make it fair for everybody.

I suggest a consumption tax. Everybody is covered and we pay for it when we make purchases. No politics involved, no vote buying, just everybody pitch in rich, poor, or anybody in between. When costs go up, so does the consumption tax. We get rid of the VA, SCHIP's program, Medicare, Medicaid, all of it. Everybody under one plan.

 

[leftwinger]

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at some point everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

Why are you dodging my question? Fine people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it, true statement, but in reality many many do... So what happens to our society if a large chunk of new mothers go broke or bankrupt after having a kid?

A large percentage of CA births are to illegals. They never go bankrupt? 20% 30% illegals?

 

[Norman]

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

Why are you dodging my question? Fine people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it, true statement, but in reality many many do... So what happens to our society if a large chunk of new mothers go broke or bankrupt after having a kid?

They find decent men to marry, who can provide for them. Something they failed to do on their first attempt.

This will also solve the very significant problem of single motherhood.

Your hopes and dreams for this magical event to happen is quite optimistic. But in reality making a single mother or young family broke doesn't help them find a decent person with money to take care of them. Also, don't believe that is a plan that we can count on happening.

Being responsible is like magic to a liberal indeed. Well, if you are not willing to be responsible, don't be amazed to end up broke. No magic...

 

[Slade3200]

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at some point everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.

If you want to change the definition of what insurance is, yeah, you can claim everything is covered. However, insurance is supposed to cover unplanned events. Pregnancy is hardly unplanned. It shouldn't even be covered by insurance. That's like having insurance cover plastic surgery or a sex change operation.

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

Why are you dodging my question? Fine people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it, true statement, but in reality many many do... So what happens to our society if a large chunk of new mothers go broke or bankrupt after having a kid?

A large percentage of CA births are to illegals. They never go bankrupt? 20% 30% illegals?

So what? Why do you guys keep deflecting?

 

[Slade3200]

It costs about $10-$20K to have a baby in the hospital, thats without complications. Without insurance coverage how many people do you think will be going broke or bankrupt over having a baby. Is that something that you think will help our hurt our society?

A policy that includes maternity coverage used to cost an additional $10,000.yr. If you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one.

When did left wingers start caring whether their policies had a negative affect on society?

Why are you dodging my question? Fine people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it, true statement, but in reality many many do... So what happens to our society if a large chunk of new mothers go broke or bankrupt after having a kid?

They find decent men to marry, who can provide for them. Something they failed to do on their first attempt.

This will also solve the very significant problem of single motherhood.

Your hopes and dreams for this magical event to happen is quite optimistic. But in reality making a single mother or young family broke doesn't help them find a decent person with money to take care of them. Also, don't believe that is a plan that we can count on happening.

Being responsible is like magic to a liberal indeed. Well, if you are not willing to be responsible, don't be amazed to end up broke. No magic...

I get the whole personal responsibility thing... Now move past your "life lessons" and deal with reality. People are going to do what they are going to do and poor people have babies. So is it your opinion that these people should be helped or pay the consequences of not having money or insurance?