The Death of a Presidency

[TemplarKormac]

Not sure where you got that out of what I wrote... but okay.

Does that clear things up for you?

No, not really, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

In Republican-Land, the only people who get jobs are those who are willing to work themselves to death making some other asshole rich. Everyone else can just die, as far as the GOP is concerned. Mitt and his boys can eat their $50,000 lunches and call half the country moochers while they ride off on their dressage ponies. Ooops. One of the wage-slaves had a camera!

So how's this for a concept. Everyone who is able-bodied gets a job. Everyone with a disability who can be vocationally placed gets a job. You tax the wealthy at a healthy rate to pay for it, and there are always streets to be built and graffitti to be cleaned and parks to be tended to... but everyone works for their keep.

How about not. Here's a concept:

Let every man be responsible for his own success or failure. Keep government out of it.

 

[JoeB131]

[

How about not. Here's a concept:

Let every man be responsible for his own success or failure. Keep government out of it.

Only Wingnuts define starving children as "Freedom"....

For a guy who lives off the charity of others, you are awfully judgemental.

Just saying.

here's the thing, No one got there on his own.

I'm actually pretty proud of some of the things I accomplished, but I wouldn't be there if there weren't people giving me oppurtunities. The Army, and I can even say a few nice things about a couple civilian employers...

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

How about not. Here's a concept:

Let every man be responsible for his own success or failure. Keep government out of it.

Only Wingnuts define starving children as "Freedom"....

For a guy who lives off the charity of others, you are awfully judgemental.

Just saying.

Only Liberals would use children as pawns to further an agenda. You don't give a damn about them. For a guy who cares about children, you're awfully fond of killing them in the womb.

Just saying.

 

[Katzndogz]

Where are all these starving children?

 

[BDBoop]

The Problem | No Kid Hungry | End Child Hunger in America

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know, I hear so much bitching about how expensive all this insurance is, but I have a question for all of you. The fact is that we are paying $8500 per year per person in the US for healthcare. That is for every single person living here, regardless of their age or whether they are a legal citizen or not. Please tell me who you think pays for that when all of you expect to buy health insurance for $200 per month or less and have it cover all of your medical bills. Again, critical thinking comes into play. $200 per month does not come close to $8500 per year. I honestly do not understand how individuals who otherwise seem to be fairly intelligent are so out of touch with these numbers and how they affect us.

Let me guess, you think every penny of that comes from the government.

Fact is, most of it comes from people who have their insurance already. In fact, if we are to believe Obama, less than 5% of it is actually coming out of taxes to cover the rounding errors in the system.

You can't have it both ways.

Why would I think that? It seems to me that all of you who think we can spend $8500 per person and only think it should cost $200 per month believe it comes form the healthcare fairy.

The fact is that almost 45% of all heatlhcare spending comes from the govenrment, which of course is our tax money. The rest comes from the private sector of which 40% comes from private health insurance and the rest comes out of pocket in one form or another.

We spend $85000 a month because the government set up tax incentives that remove the consumer from making decisions about costs. You can bitch and moan about how expensive everything is, but unless you get down to the fact that people are insulated from those expenses, and Obamacare is only going to make that worse, you aren't bitching about the costs, you are bitching about the fact that you don't want to pay for it. I was just pointing out that you really aren't in an attempt to get you to admit you are wrong.

As usual, I gave an Obamacare supporter way to much credit for being able to think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually I'm basing it on what I have researched and seen personally for myself and others. I know it's not perfect and some are going to get hammered, but overall, most people are going to get good coverage for a fair price, and for many it will include some subsidies. But even without being eligible for any subsidies, I found a great plan that fits my needs and should lower my overall medical costs. The plan itself is just a bit cheaper than what I have now, but my deductible is going to double. This could cost me if I get sick, but despite having a couple of medical conditions, I am not likely to become seriously ill anytime in the near future. I don't even come close to my deductible now, so increasing it is not a big risk to me.

You know it from what you personally have researched?

You expect us to believe that you just happen to be one of the less than 1% of the population that actually managed to buy a new plan? Seriously?

Or, more likely, are you just lying, and the real fact is that you haven't actually looked at the numbers? Be honest, all you have is the lies the government made up before hand to sell this to the idiots.

Yea, I'm just lying. I'm not going to purchase health insurance. After December 31st, I probably won't have a need for it anymore.

Because I am currently in the high risk pool, I knew my insurance coverage would be ending at the end of the year. I knew this last year, so yes, I know exactly what plan I am purchasing, but no I haven't actually made the payment yet. I will do so before the end of the month.

Obama admitted, in writing, that the exchanges cost more, even with subsidies, than the old policies did, yet you keep insisting that most people will end up paying less. I have a choice to assume you are lying, or that you are a blithering idiot. Excuse me for giving you credit for having a brain.

Obamacare plans cost more 'in many cases' even WITH government subsidies, Obama administration admits for the first time | Mail Online

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a lie at all, because the rules that cover employers who provide health insurance are completely different from the rules for the individual market. When HIPAA laws were passed, they stopped insurers from rejecting people for health insurance if they got their insurance through their employer. In some cases, those with pre-existing conditions could be excluded from coverage for their particular condition only, for one year. They would still be covered for anything else.

The problem was that HIPAA laws never addressed the individual market. This is why most healthy people could actually find a cheaper plan on the individual market, but if you got sick, they would do what they could to get rid of you. Now, they didn't just dump all sick people, but there were numerous instances of companies trying to purge their rolls of "sick people". In my personal case, I lost my insurance when I moved even though Anthem assured me I would be able to purchase a plan as close to the one I had for a comparable rate. My mistake was not getting it in writing. Once I applied, I was immediately denied.

As for the rest, anyone and everyone with a pre-existing condition could not purchase insurance on the individual market. If you had a pre-existing condition, then you would have to find a job that offered insurance.

Luckily, I was able to get insurance through the high risk pool once the ACA was enacted. The ironic thing is that the rates for the high risk pool are cheaper than most decent plans offered on the open market as of this past year. The even more ironic thing is that the new plan I will be purchasing is even cheaper but only by a couple of bucks, and that is with no subsidy.

Bottom line is there were no lies at all. Those in the individual market got a great deal if they were healthy, but get sick with anything, and you were not wanted.

Excuse me? Do you always make shit up when you get caught saying stupid shit?

All HIPPA does is set standards for privacy on medical records and allow people to keep their insurance even if they lost their jobs, as long as they paid for it. It doesn't do a fucking thing that even approaches preventing insurers from charging based on a person's health. If it did, you wouldn't have needed to shove Obamacare down everyone's throats.

Did you mention high risk pools? Funny that, it turns out that Obamacare is screwing people in those over just as much as it is everyone else.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcmsdtFM9YA"]FNC: People With Pre Existing Conditions Having Plans Canceled - YouTube[/ame]

Want to tell me again how you aren't lying? Right after you just lied about HIPPA? That should go over well.

So you are telling me HIPAA laws do not prevent insurers from denying coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions if the company they work for offers insurance to other employees?

Preexisting Condition Exclusions
The law defines a preexisting condition as one for which medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6-month period prior to an individual’s enrollment date (which is the earlier of the first day of health coverage or the first day of any waiting period for coverage).
Group health plans and issuers may not exclude an individual’s preexisting medical condition from coverage for more than 12 months (18 months for late enrollees) after an individual’s enrollment date.
Under HIPAA, a new employer’s plan must give individuals credit for the length of time they had prior continuous health coverage, without a break in coverage of 63 days or more, thereby reducing or eliminating the 12-month exclusion period (18 months for late enrollees).

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fshipaa.html

It would help if you knew the laws surrounding HIPAA.

Excuse me?

Can you point out what you just posted that backs up your claim that everyone at a company pays the same rates? Because that is what I called you on, and you then responded with a diversion about how HIPAA prevents insurers from denying people with preexisting conditions, even though you just admitted it doesn't.

By the way, are you aware that there were plenty of states that regulated the individual markets? that the high risk pools, which you just mentioned, that existed before Obamacare were the direct result of states regulating the individual market to make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage to individuals on the basis of preexisting conditions?

Want to tell me again how I don't understand something? Want to explain how you had insurance despite the fact that you are claiming that insurers could deny coverage based on pre existing conditions?

Do you really want me to explain to everyone why you are lying, or do you prefer to keep pretending you are fooling everyone but the crazy guy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a lie at all, because the rules that cover employers who provide health insurance are completely different from the rules for the individual market. When HIPAA laws were passed, they stopped insurers from rejecting people for health insurance if they got their insurance through their employer. In some cases, those with pre-existing conditions could be excluded from coverage for their particular condition only, for one year. They would still be covered for anything else.

The problem was that HIPAA laws never addressed the individual market. This is why most healthy people could actually find a cheaper plan on the individual market, but if you got sick, they would do what they could to get rid of you. Now, they didn't just dump all sick people, but there were numerous instances of companies trying to purge their rolls of "sick people". In my personal case, I lost my insurance when I moved even though Anthem assured me I would be able to purchase a plan as close to the one I had for a comparable rate. My mistake was not getting it in writing. Once I applied, I was immediately denied.

As for the rest, anyone and everyone with a pre-existing condition could not purchase insurance on the individual market. If you had a pre-existing condition, then you would have to find a job that offered insurance.

Luckily, I was able to get insurance through the high risk pool once the ACA was enacted. The ironic thing is that the rates for the high risk pool are cheaper than most decent plans offered on the open market as of this past year. The even more ironic thing is that the new plan I will be purchasing is even cheaper but only by a couple of bucks, and that is with no subsidy.

Bottom line is there were no lies at all. Those in the individual market got a great deal if they were healthy, but get sick with anything, and you were not wanted.

Excuse me? Do you always make shit up when you get caught saying stupid shit?

All HIPPA does is set standards for privacy on medical records and allow people to keep their insurance even if they lost their jobs, as long as they paid for it. It doesn't do a fucking thing that even approaches preventing insurers from charging based on a person's health. If it did, you wouldn't have needed to shove Obamacare down everyone's throats.

Did you mention high risk pools? Funny that, it turns out that Obamacare is screwing people in those over just as much as it is everyone else.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcmsdtFM9YA"]FNC: People With Pre Existing Conditions Having Plans Canceled - YouTube[/ame]

Want to tell me again how you aren't lying? Right after you just lied about HIPPA? That should go over well.

Of course the high risk pools are being cancelled. Everyone in the high risk pool knew this from the get go. The high risk pool was set up as a bridge until the ACA fully went into effect. Why would there be a high risk pool if everyone in that pool can now buy health insurance and not be denied or charged ten times as much as anyone else? Man, you are starting to lose it here.

The high risks pools that existed before Obama was elected were a temporary measure until Obamacare went into effect? How, exactly, does that work?

Wait, you think there was no such thing as insurance regulations before Obamacare, despite the fact that every single state had imposed regulations on insurance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are correct that most plans do not offer coverage out of your home state, and I think that is a problem. They all cover emergency treatment, but there is a real question as to what that entails. If you suffer a heart attack and need immediate open heart surgery, will that be covered? I'm not certain. The plan I chose to purchase actually does have coverage out of state, but it comes with a $10,000 deductible. That to me is still a big plus because at my age, I'm now more concerned with the really big potential bills. As for plans being good outside of the country, I don't know how many actually were in the past.

See, I could actually discuss shit with you if you weren't such a jerk all the time. Of course you know that I am a liar, because nothing I say could possibly be true.

I've had to deal with insurance companies for years between my late wife's battle with cancer, having two sons born premature with one of them being in NICU for almost two months, and then my own health issues.

You can't read, can you?

The plans available in California don't even cover you if you travel inside the state, never mind out of it.

Was a bit difficult to find, but Blue Shield of California does offer coverage out of network. As with any plan, the deductibles are higher than in network. What this tells me is that you have been talking crap. You said none of the companies offer out of network, which would cover anything out of state, coverage. You lied.

https://www.blueshieldca.com/bsca/sbc-assets/public/ifp/Enhanced_PPO_200_Subsidy_Dual_SBC_1-14.pdf

https://www.blueshieldca.com/bsca/sbc-assets/public/ifp/Basic_PPO_SBC_Dual_1-14.pdf

Does anything there contradict what I said? Why the fuck is it now out of network to live in San Diego and go to a doctor that specializes in oncology in San Francisco? Do you know that it was actually possible to buy an individual insurance policy in California last year that offered treatments in San Antonio as part of the in network coverage? Can you explain why that works? I can, and it has nothing to do with better policies, it has everything to do with the government screwing up insurance policies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Go for it, you can foot the bill.. But the problem is, you want to speak for the rest of us.

UNSAT

-Geaux

We had something called "an Election".

Deal with it.

Yes, we did, and the Republicans won control of the House.

Deal with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We had something called "an Election".

Deal with it.

Oh, I'm down with that.... But the ones having the hard time 'dealing with it' are you losers who were duped by the messiah and voted for this 3-ring circus

Feels worse than sleeping on the wet spot huh?

-Geaux

Actually, I have the same insurance I had before ObamaCare.

So, no, not really.

Now, I know you miss your high deductable, no real coverage CleetusCare policy the slick guy from the insurance company sold you, but, hey, you get to keep it for another year.

Only because Obama decided not to let you know how bad it is by enforcing the employer mandate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, no, if Clinton had Bush's economy, he'd be toast.

So what?

Hey, but Obama has Obama's economy.. LMAO

-Geaux

Which is a damned sight better than Bush's economy.

We still haven't gotten back to the employment numbers we had the day Obama took office, how is this better?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not doubting that there are starving children. But the fact is, if a pro-choice liberal like Joe ever cared about the poor starving children, he wouldn't advocate keeping their parents in a less than prosperous situation via government entitlements. Nor would he advocate slaughtering them n the womb. Some of these children are in homes where all their parents do is live off the government dole. Dependents raising dependents.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Go for it, you can foot the bill.. But the problem is, you want to speak for the rest of us.

UNSAT

-Geaux

We had something called "an Election".

Deal with it.

Yes, we did, and the Republicans won control of the House.

Deal with it.

But they lost House elections by 1.5 million votes, which is why we don't really have to pay much attention to what the House says.

 

[Geaux4it]

We had something called "an Election".

Deal with it.

Yes, we did, and the Republicans won control of the House.

Deal with it.

But they lost House elections by 1.5 million votes, which is why we don't really have to pay much attention to what the House says.

Yes you do

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, I'm down with that.... But the ones having the hard time 'dealing with it' are you losers who were duped by the messiah and voted for this 3-ring circus

Feels worse than sleeping on the wet spot huh?

-Geaux

Actually, I have the same insurance I had before ObamaCare.

So, no, not really.

Now, I know you miss your high deductable, no real coverage CleetusCare policy the slick guy from the insurance company sold you, but, hey, you get to keep it for another year.

Only because Obama decided not to let you know how bad it is by enforcing the employer mandate.

First, my insurance is pretty good. Deductable is only $1500, covers all doctors appointments, preventive care tests like colonoscopies, etc. So, no, even after the cheap ass companies that aren't providing insurance to the wage slaves have to start doing that (and getting pretty generous tax breaks when they do), it really, really will not change what my company does.)

It more than qualifies under all the stringents of ObamaCare.

Now, yeah, if it were a private policy, it would probably cost me about $5000.00 a year. I pay in $500 and my company pays in the rest.

I swear, you're just retarded, because I've explained this to you about six times and you keep standing there saying "Corky no understand!!!"

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not doubting that there are starving children. But the fact is, if a pro-choice liberal like Joe ever cared about the poor starving children, he wouldn't advocate keeping their parents in a less than prosperous situation via government entitlements. Nor would he advocate slaughtering them n the womb. Some of these children are in homes where all their parents do is live off the government dole. Dependents raising dependents.

Obviously, you don't understand what pro-choice is.

Pro choice is, I think it should be the WOMAN'S decision.

But I can always tell when you are losing an argument is when you bring up abortion.. in a non-abortion thread.

Getting back to my original point.

What would be wrong if we had a soceity where EVERY able bodied person was promised a renumerative job? FDR made this the centerpiece of his "Second Bill of Rights" along with universal Health Care in his 1944 State of the Union Address.




Not that i expect a RATIONAL answer to the above question, but please refrain from any answer that involves the words "Communism", "Marxism" or "Socialism", because you will just look silly.

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm not doubting that there are starving children. But the fact is, if a pro-choice liberal like Joe ever cared about the poor starving children, he wouldn't advocate keeping their parents in a less than prosperous situation via government entitlements. Nor would he advocate slaughtering them n the womb. Some of these children are in homes where all their parents do is live off the government dole. Dependents raising dependents.

Obviously, you don't understand what pro-choice is.

Pro choice is, I think it should be the WOMAN'S decision.

But I can always tell when you are losing an argument is when you bring up abortion.. in a non-abortion thread.

So you're for pro-choice in some matters but not in others. If a woman can choose what to do with her body, why can't she choose what insurance she wants?

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not doubting that there are starving children. But the fact is, if a pro-choice liberal like Joe ever cared about the poor starving children, he wouldn't advocate keeping their parents in a less than prosperous situation via government entitlements. Nor would he advocate slaughtering them n the womb. Some of these children are in homes where all their parents do is live off the government dole. Dependents raising dependents.

Obviously, you don't understand what pro-choice is.

Pro choice is, I think it should be the WOMAN'S decision.

But I can always tell when you are losing an argument is when you bring up abortion.. in a non-abortion thread.

So you're for pro-choice in some matters but not in others. If a woman can choose what to do with her body, why can't she choose what insurance she wants?

-Geaux

No, she can totally have whatever insurance she wants... as long as it meets a legal standard.

Just like she can totally have an abortion as long as it is performed by a certified provider. (Who doesn't necessarily need to be a doctor.)