my collision with Obamacare

[jaeger19]

oh I beg to differ. the size of Obamacare is only a pointless and silly conservative talking point and (read this slowly) had nothing to do with our discussion. Hence you "obediently spewed" it as some sort of "emergency exit" because you've once again gotten in over your "expert" head. and what made it dishonest is you spewed it as if it was a response to something I said. Jaeger, the size of Obamacare legislation is a discussion that exists only in your head. Jog made the claim that the pre-existing condition exclusion could be easily fixed by a simple regulation. Your VDS drove you to jump in and take jog's side and your VDS drives to not admit you are wrong. Its why you continue to try to make the discussion about "size" instead of "simple regulation".

I recommend bed rest for you until you find your integrity
Dr Vern

Actually the size of obamacare is neither pointless nor silly. And it has everything to do with the discussion.

Jog made the claim that the pre existing condition exclusion could be fixed with a simple regulation. And that's fact.

Size of a regulation certainly correlates positively with a regulations complexity. (wait.. are you now going to argue about FONT size? ) But again whatever makes "dr Vern".. feel better about himself.

 

[Vern]

Actually the size of obamacare is neither pointless nor silly. And it has everything to do with the discussion.

Jog made the claim that the pre existing condition exclusion could be fixed with a simple regulation. And that's fact.

Size of a regulation certainly correlates positively with a regulations complexity. (wait.. are you now going to argue about FONT size? ) But again whatever makes "dr Vern".. feel better about himself.

uh oh, its another double space reply. this is not going to be good. jaeger, see the 2nd line in your doubled space reply. Its not a fact. That is at best an opinion. And its an opinion that you've back up by simply posting "nuh uh, can too" over and over. And now read this slowly. I've shown you what happened in states that simply regulated away the pre existing condition exclusion. So your repeated rhetoric is not even an opinion. Its a narrative. An unsupported narrative. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically become true.

I cant stress enough that your "size matters" obsession has nothing to do with the discussion. the size of Obamacare is only a pointless and silly conservative talking point and again has nothing to do with our discussion. and jaeger, this "witty remark" only proves you need help for your VDS

(wait.. are you now going to argue about FONT size? )

Your "zing" made no sense even if I was discussing "size" but the "size" argument is simply a figment of your imagination. Again jaeger, you need help. I recommend rest and no stressful activities like reading facts at a debate forum.

Dr Vern

 

[jaeger19]

uh oh, its another double space reply. this is not going to be good. jaeger, see the 2nd line in your doubled space reply. Its not a fact. That is at best an opinion. And its an opinion that you've back up by simply posting "nuh uh, can too" over and over. And now read this slowly. I've shown you what happened in states that simply regulated away the pre existing condition exclusion. So your repeated rhetoric is not even an opinion. Its a narrative. An unsupported narrative. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically become true.

I cant stress enough that your "size matters" obsession has nothing to do with the discussion. the size of Obamacare is only a pointless and silly conservative talking point and again has nothing to do with our discussion. and jaeger, this "witty remark" only proves you need help for your VDS



Your "zing" made no sense even if I was discussing "size" but the "size" argument is simply a figment of your imagination. Again jaeger, you need help. I recommend rest and no stressful activities like reading facts at a debate forum.

Dr Vern

It is a fact vern.

Vern.. You simply don't understand that your "evidence" is NOT evidence that a pre existing exclusion cannot be done away with with a simple regulation.

You simply have an example of a regulation that did not work.. not that ANY simple regulation would not work.

I'll make it simple for you .

You have a flat in your bicycle tire. ... you take it to your friendand he guesses where to put the patch on the tire.. and it doesn't work.

According to your logic.. then the whole bike needs to be replaced.. since there is no simply fix.

I on the other hand. make the tire wet. find the leak.. put a patch on it and its done. Easy Peasy.

 

[Vern]

It is a fact vern.

Vern.. You simply don't understand that your "evidence" is NOT evidence that a pre existing exclusion cannot be done away with with a simple regulation.
You simply have an example of a regulation that did not work.. not that ANY simple regulation would not work.
I'll make it simple for you .
You have a flat in your bicycle tire. ... you take it to your friendand he guesses where to put the patch on the tire.. and it doesn't work.
According to your logic.. then the whole bike needs to be replaced.. since there is no simply fix.
I on the other hand. make the tire wet. find the leak.. put a patch on it and its done. Easy Peasy.

Oh jaeger, when you have to resort to silly analogies to flail at the facts I've posted rather than back up your "narrative" then its time for you to stop. And I know you think whining at me " its a fact" proves your point but that only proves your VDS. and jaeger, it was not "an example of a regulation that did not work". It was every state that tried to get of the pre-existing condition exclusion with a simple regulation. See how your brain makes you think facts are not facts and your narratives are facts. that's VDS.

 

[jaeger19]

Oh jaeger, when you have to resort to silly analogies to flail at the facts I've posted rather than back up your "narrative" then its time for you to stop. And I know you think whining at me " its a fact" proves your point but that only proves your VDS. and jaeger, it was not "an example of a regulation that did not work". It was every state that tried to get of the pre-existing condition exclusion with a simple regulation. See how your brain makes you think facts are not facts and your narratives are facts. that's VDS.

Whatever makes you feel better vern.

 

[Vern]

Whatever makes you feel better vern.

what would make me feel better is if you could respond honestly. I know its not your fault but you have to try. I think the problem is proving your narrative false in one just post. Its just too much for you. So lets start out small. When I post the examples of failure for every state that simply "regulated away" the pre-existing condition exclusion, can you admit that you posting "nuh uh, can too" doesn't back up your point?

 

[jaeger19]

what would make me feel better is if you could respond honestly. I know its not your fault but you have to try. I think the problem is proving your narrative false in one just post. Its just too much for you. So lets start out small. When I post the examples of failure for every state that simply "regulated away" the pre-existing condition exclusion, can you admit that you posting "nuh uh, can too" doesn't back up your point?

I have responded honestly. What would make us all feel better Vern is if you could refrain from the name calling and the other histrionics that you go through.

Yes.. lets start out small.

You posted examples of failure of some states that tried to do with pre existing conditions. That means.. Those attempts failed... that's it. It does not mean that ANY simple regulation can work. Only that certain attempts have not worked.

that's all your evidence means Vern. But you can't even be honest about that.

 

[Vern]

I have responded honestly. What would make us all feel better Vern is if you could refrain from the name calling and the other histrionics that you go through.

no jaeger, you haven't, not at all. you couldn't even admit that "nuh uh, can too" doesn't back up your point. Its classic VDS. Again, you repeatedly posting what you wish was true as you ignore the facts is not "honest." And you only whine about "name calling and histrionics" when you get your head handed to you. "wah wah you're mean" is just another classic conservative dodge.

Yes.. lets start out small.

You posted examples of failure of some states that tried to do with pre existing conditions. That means.. Those attempts failed... that's it. It does not mean that ANY simple regulation can work. Only that certain attempts have not worked.

that's all your evidence means Vern. But you can't even be honest about that.

Yes jaeger, I've posted evidence that contradicts your narrative. Maybe there is some simple regulation out that can magically fix the pre-existing condition exclusion but "nuh uh, can too" is not evidence. You couldn't even admit that. It's just more evidence of your VDS. And your VDS prevents you from acknowledging even the smallest fact. Prove me wrong jaeger, admit that "nuh uh, can too" doesn't back up your point.

 

[jaeger19]

no jaeger, you haven't, not at all. you couldn't even admit that "nuh uh, can too" doesn't back up your point. Its classic VDS. Again, you repeatedly posting what you wish was true as you ignore the facts is not "honest." And you only whine about "name calling and histrionics" when you get your head handed to you. "wah wah you're mean" is just another classic conservative dodge.



Yes jaeger, I've posted evidence that contradicts your narrative. Maybe there is some simple regulation out that can magically fix the pre-existing condition exclusion but "nuh uh, can too" is not evidence. You couldn't even admit that. It's just more evidence of your VDS. And your VDS prevents you from acknowledging even the smallest fact. Prove me wrong jaeger, admit that "nuh uh, can too" doesn't back up your point.

No vern.. you haven't posted evidence that contradicts me. I have already addressed your evidence. You are so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see the facts. ..

Its not my fault that you are purposely being obtuse. Have a nice day.

 

[Vern]

No vern.. you haven't posted evidence that contradicts me. I have already addressed your evidence. You are so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see the facts. ..

Its not my fault that you are purposely being obtuse. Have a nice day.

Oh jaeger, you're almost there. I have posted evidence that contradicts you (getting rid of pre-existing condition exclusion only requires a simple regulation). Yes, contradicts you because you've not posted anything to back up your point. And all you've posted is "nuh uh, can too". You're free to believe in your narrative but if you're going to ignore the facts I've posted and ignore that you've posted nothing to back up your "claim" then you should be at a chatroom. You cant even admit "nuh uh, can too" doesn't back up your point.

You have to understand that your whining about me is just an excuse to cut and run. Your VDS prevents you from acknowledging the clear facts I've posted. Like an addict throwing a tantrum at an intervention, you're just trying to maintain the status quo be it an addiction to drugs or an addiction to conservative delusions.

 

[jaeger19]

Oh jaeger, you're almost there. I have posted evidence that contradicts you (getting rid of pre-existing condition exclusion only requires a simple regulation). .

Yeah no.. it does not contradict me vern. You found evidence that some attempts at getting rid of the pre existing condition exclusion didn't work out well. You certainly did not find evidence that it cannot be done with a simple regulation. I feel sorry for you that you don't have the capacity to understand that.

I also feel sorry for you that you don't have the capacity to understand evidence and logic. the reason there is no recent examples of pre existing conditions being done away with in a simple regulation.. IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE AWAY WITH IN OBAMACARE.

So the logical question is "did there have to be a regulation as large as obamacare... to do away with pre existing conditions? And the logical answer is no.. since Obamacare has tons of things in it that have nothing to do and no influence on pre existing conditions.

I don't whine vern.. I simply point out logic and facts. The only one here that's delusional is you.

 

[Vern]

Yeah no.. it does not contradict me vern. You found evidence that some attempts at getting rid of the pre existing condition exclusion didn't work out well. You certainly did not find evidence that it cannot be done with a simple regulation. I feel sorry for you that you don't have the capacity to understand that.

Oh jaeger, that's the part you're simply not getting. I don't have to disprove your baseless opinion. Say that over and over until you understand. Now read this as many times as necessary to overcome your VDS. I've shown exactly what happened in states that "simply regulated away the pre-existing condition exclusion. " That's evidence it cant be done. You've simply posted "nuh uh, can too" over and over. Somewhere in your brain you realize that's not "evidence" because you keep trying to post I have to disprove your baseless opinion. Your wishful thinking only proves your narrative to you. It proves your VDS to me.

I also feel sorry for you that you don't have the capacity to understand evidence and logic.

jaeger, read this as many times as necessary. You've posted no evidence or logic. "Nuh uh, can too" is neither evidence nor logic. Its just a sad spectacle of someone with VDS. Now please post something that shows the pre-existing condition exclusion can be fixed with a simple regulation. don't babble about size. Don't babble about Obamacare. Don't babble about me. Back up your point.

 

[jaeger19]

Oh jaeger, that's the part you're simply not getting. I don't have to disprove your baseless opinion. Say that over and over until you understand. Now read this as many times as necessary to overcome your VDS. I've shown exactly what happened in states that "simply regulated away the pre-existing condition exclusion. " That's evidence it cant be done.
.

no vern.. its not evidence that "it can't be done".

Now please post something that shows the pre-existing condition exclusion can be fixed with a simple regulation. don't babble about size. Don't babble about Obamacare. Don't babble about me. Back up your point.

I already did vern.

You don't want to accept logic... that's why you cry "don't babble about size".. Size of a regulation.. does factor in its complexity.

Face it man.. You are simply and ideologue that thinks everyone else is as ideologically driven as you. And all you have is insults.

have another nice day,. .

 

[Vern]

no vern.. its not evidence that "it can't be done".

I already did vern.

those two statements right there are just more evidence of your VDS. I've posted examples of exactly what happened in states that simply regulated away the pre-existing condition exclusion. You should look up the definition of evidence. and jaeger, you've backed up no point. You've literally posted nothing but rhetoric. You at least stopped calling your empty factless rhetoric "evidence" and now only call it "logic". that shows there is hope for you but it also shows you know you're being dishonest. Not caring about your integrity is more evidence of VDS.

 

[jaeger19]

those two statements right there are just more evidence of your VDS. I've posted examples of exactly what happened in states that simply regulated away the pre-existing condition exclusion. .

yes you did vern.. you presented evidence of what happened in states when they attempted to regulate the pre existing condition exclusion away... and you have made a tremendous leap in claiming that it means " it can't be done".

its not my fault you cannot see the intellectual disconnect you are making.

You've literally posted nothing but rhetoric.

Actually not true.

when I pointed out that the ACA is a huge bill.. that has tons of stuff that has nothing to do with pre existing conditions... that's evidence that pre existing conditions could be done in simple regulation.

There are basically two things that need to be in a simple bill.. outlaw pre existing conditions with the caveat that there is a mandate that you have to have health insurance. That's pretty much it.

Here is an example:

Around that same time, across the Delaware River, the state of New Jersey was trying something different.

“Insurers could not take health status into account,” said Joel Cantor, director of Rutgers’ Center for State Health Policy who has been analyzing the New Jersey experience.

Before the ACA, New Jersey was one of just a handful of states that prohibited insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. Insurers also weren’t allowed to charge people significantly more for having a health issue, and the plans had to offer robust coverage of services.

There was a one-year waiting period for coverage of a preexisting condition, but a larger issue became cost. The entire individual market in New Jersey became expensive for everyone, regardless of their health status, Cantor said. Because there was no mandate to have health insurance coverage, those who signed up tended to need it, and healthy people did not enroll.

There you go vern.

Now explain to us all why it has to be so much more complicated than that. New Jersey could have done it with the addition of a mandate.

 

[YorkshirePete]

A couple of days ago I finally received the long-dreaded policy cancellation letter from Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Florida. My previous monthly premium for my grandfathered policy was $174 / mo ($2,088 / yr). The cheapest Obamacare-compliant policy available from BCBSFL is $412 / mo ($4,944 / yr). Almost $3k more per year for health insurance if I stay with BCBSFL! To put it mildly, I am not pleased. :censored

So, is my grandfathered policy "junk"? Absolutely not. It has a much higher deductible (now illegal under Obamacare), but I was fine with that. It also excluded coverage for my pre-existing condition (a hernia). I decided that I was willing to risk having to pay for the hernia repair myself in exchange for a lower monthly premium (I've had the hernia for many years, the condition has never changed, and it causes me no pain or discomfort). This kind of mental calculation is forbidden under Obamacare.

Despite Obamacare's rhetoric of helping the middle class, I have a middle-class income as a self-employed manager, do not qualify for subsidies, and am getting slammed with higher premiums for the privilege of being force-fed a health insurance policy I do not want.

I did some searching online, and found a website that claims that the average premium for a 50 year old male (I'm 52) in my county is $325 / mo. I found another insurance company online who quoted a bronze policy around that number. I tried to register on healthcare.gov, but the website malfunctioned with an "unexpected error".

Entirely by coincidence, a couple of weeks ago I deregistered as a Democrat (I've long considered myself an Independent who votes with the Dems). Well, now I'm an Independent who is severely disgusted with both political parties.

I have a few months to arrange for new health insurance. I will post an update as the situation evolves. Thanks for letting me rant. :2wave:

You could go to Europe.
Much better there
It's the insurance companies - 25% overhead.
Be interesting what you find out.
Obamacare, trumpcare, there's no hope while health is a profit business

 

[YorkshirePete]

those two statements right there are just more evidence of your VDS. I've posted examples of exactly what happened in states that simply regulated away the pre-existing condition exclusion. You should look up the definition of evidence. and jaeger, you've backed up no point. You've literally posted nothing but rhetoric. You at least stopped calling your empty factless rhetoric "evidence" and now only call it "logic". that shows there is hope for you but it also shows you know you're being dishonest. Not caring about your integrity is more evidence of VDS.

Uneducated Rhetoric?
I thought that was what our uneducated white boy forum was all about

 

[jaeger19]

You could go to Europe.
Much better there
It's the insurance companies - 25% overhead.
Be interesting what you find out.
Obamacare, trumpcare, there's no hope while health is a profit business

Hmmmm a good portion of Europe.. for example france.. healthcare insurance and healthcare is a for profit business.

 

[Vern]

yes you did vern.. you presented evidence of what happened in states when they attempted to regulate the pre existing condition exclusion away... and you have made a tremendous leap in claiming that it means " it can't be done".

its not my fault you cannot see the intellectual disconnect you are making.

Well jaeger, I guess its a big step for you to call it evidence. Remember your first reply to the fact that simply regulating away the pre-existing condition exclusion failed in every state? read it yourself

first.. you haven's shown me anything.

Yea, see how it went from "nothing" to "evidence" over the course of over 20 posts. That's an example of an " intellectual disconnect." And jaeger, I didn't just assure you that you had an " intellectual disconnect." I quoted you. I don't even have to bring up your "simple regulation" to "single bill" to "bill as large as Obamacare" transformation to show your dishonesty. And jaeger, once you start taking mandates, you're not talking a simple regulation. It really is just common sense.

Actually not true.

when I pointed out that the ACA is a huge bill.. that has tons of stuff that has nothing to do with pre existing conditions... that's evidence that pre existing conditions could be done in simple regulation.

Jaeger, I'm not discussing your dishonest attempt to re-direct the discussion to the "size of Obamacare". I'm discussing your empty factless rhetoric that the pre-existing condition can be easily fixed with a simple regulation.

There are basically two things that need to be in a simple bill.. outlaw pre existing conditions with the caveat that there is a mandate that you have to have health insurance. That's pretty much it.

Here is an example:

Great example jaeger. did it work? Yea, it didn’t. And you prove it when you say “they just needed to add a mandate. ” There you go jaeger, your one example didn't work. thanks for playing. As I've stated above, that's not a "simple regulation" and (this is key) your "assurances" are not evidence. But jaeger, this is good. You've actually attempted to back up a narrative. Sure, the link doesn't say what you think it said and it took you over 20 posts to attempt to back it up but at least you tried. And thankfully it wasn't another "nuh uh, can too" response.

Now explain to us all why it has to be so much more complicated than that. New Jersey could have done it with the addition of a mandate.

If you want to start another discussion that a “simple regulation only needs to add mandates to work” that’s fine. I won the first debate. Sure it took you over 20 posts to admit it but hey, baby steps. But jaeger, before you start the next discussion that "only need to add a mandate" remember your "assurances" are not evidence.

 

[jaeger19]

Well jaeger, I guess its a big step for you to call it evidence. Remember your first reply to the fact that simply regulating away the pre-existing condition exclusion failed in every state? read it yourself



Yea, see how it went from "nothing" to "evidence" over the course of over 20 posts. That's an example of an " intellectual disconnect." And jaeger, I didn't just assure you that you had an " intellectual disconnect." I quoted you. I don't even have to bring up your "simple regulation" to "single bill" to "bill as large as Obamacare" transformation to show your dishonesty. And jaeger, once you start taking mandates, you're not talking a simple regulation. It really is just common sense.
.

Vern.. you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. You showed me nothing that proves that pre existing conditions cannot be dealt with in a simple regulation. you called it evidence.. and I point out its not evidence of that.

And jaeger, once you start taking mandates, you're not talking a simple regulation

Wow.. and how do arrive at that conclusion?

Jaeger, I'm not discussing your dishonest attempt to re-direct the discussion to the "size of Obamacare".

Of course Vern.. because you don't want to acknowledge that fact that pre existing conditions could be dealt with in a much smaller and less complex (I,e, simple) regulation than the ACA...

We know you can't be honest when having a discussion Vern.. that's just not your style. Insults and demagoguery are more your speed.

Great example jaeger. did it work? Yea, it didn’t. And you prove it when you say “they just needed to add a mandate. ” There you go jaeger, your one example didn't work.

Yep.. for lack of a mandate.. which is a pretty dang simple thing to add to a regulation. Lets see.. probably take up what.. one maybe two sentences? :2wave:

If you want to start another discussion that a “simple regulation only needs to add mandates to work” that’s fine. I won the first debate.

Whatever massages your ego vern. :2wave: Have a nice day... You big debate winner you...

 

[Vern]

Yep.. for lack of a mandate.. which is a pretty dang simple thing to add to a regulation. Lets see.. probably take up what.. one maybe two sentences? :2wave:

Jaeger, there were so many things for me to respond to such as you posting insults after you whine about me posting insults. Or asking "how I came to that conclusion" after I've asked for over 20 posts to back up your empty factless rhetoric. But I figured with VDS you cant respond to too many things at once so I'd just focus on this. Please back up your narrative that a simple regulation that says “insurers can’t exclude people with a pre-existing condition and oh, by the way everybody has to buy insurance” would work. again, don't babble about size. Don't babble about Obamacare. Don't babble about me. Back up your point.

 

[jaeger19]

Jaeger, there were so many things for me to respond to such as you posting insults after you whine about me posting insults. Or asking "how I came to that conclusion" after I've asked for over 20 posts to back up your empty factless rhetoric. But I figured with VDS you cant respond to too many things at once so I'd just focus on this. Please back up your narrative that a simple regulation that says “insurers can’t exclude people with a pre-existing condition and oh, by the way everybody has to buy insurance” would work. again, don't babble about size. Don't babble about Obamacare. Don't babble about me. Back up your point.

Whatever you say their Dr. Vern.

I already backed up my point.. its your choice to be obtuse.

 

[lefty louie]

Dump the insurance, pay the fine, get insurance at a hospital in Argentina and fly there for normal routine surgeries.

 

[Vern]

Whatever you say their Dr. Vern.

I already backed up my point.. its your choice to be obtuse.

jaeger, help me understand how your post is not undeniable proof of your VDS. You posted an example of another failure in a state that simply regulated away the pre-existing condition and said "all they needed to do was add a mandate". You didn't in any way show that's all they needed to do. We know you believe that's all they need to do but you didn't back it up. seriously jaeger, there is no better example of VDS than "I posted it so its a fact".

 

[jaeger19]

jaeger, help me understand how your post is not undeniable proof of your VDS. You posted an example of another failure in a state that simply regulated away the pre-existing condition and said "all they needed to do was add a mandate". You didn't in any way show that's all they needed to do. We know you believe that's all they need to do but you didn't back it up. seriously jaeger, there is no better example of VDS than "I posted it so its a fact".

Actually my article discussed why they thought it didn't work.. which was because there was no mandate. But hey vern... whats evidence and facts when we have DR VERN's ideology...