- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
So higher taxes to fund another handout.Subsidies for the poor to help with insurance,So we all get taxed more, and all of our insurances go up to cover the increased risk in the pool, whereas some companies may have covered the p.e.c.s without any government interference, great.not allowing pre-existing condition exceptions(which I think is a significant gain),So we shrink the consumer pool to private companies, further straining the risk/premium pool and allow unfair publicly funded competition, this is called a monopoly in the private sector.a clearinghouse for easing getting insurance from a nonprofit insurance company among other things.In their own words:I am far from an expert on the topic, and am ambivalent about the bills so far. I think some things being done are good, some are not so good, and some things not done should be(some tort reform for example).
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk"]YouTube- SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]
Sorry for the double post, the url was misbehaving.
Redress is so drunk on UHCoolaid that he/she/it can't imagine conniving Democrats proposing that later. Redress is liberal, so he/she/it is blind to socialism.So they can't just add UHC later when they feel the public has accepted the fallout from this? Is that what you want to go on record as saying? Also, what specifically will this bill reform? Second request.
You obviously doctored these videos or had Fox do it. :mrgreen:So higher taxes to fund another handout. So we all get taxed more, and all of our insurances go up to cover the increased risk in the pool, whereas some companies may have covered the p.e.c.s without any government interference, great. So we shrink the consumer pool to private companies, further straining the risk/premium pool and allow unfair publicly funded competition, this is called a monopoly in the private sector. In their own words:
YouTube- SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance
Sorry for the double post, the url was misbehaving.
The first true statement from you I've heard. Where is redress and what have you done with him/her/it?This answer depends on what version of the bill you are talking about. Subsidies for the poor to help with insurance, not allowing pre-existing condition exceptions(which I think is a significant gain), a clearinghouse for easing getting insurance from a nonprofit insurance company among other things. I am far from an expert on the topic, and am ambivalent about the bills so far. I think some things being done are good, some are not so good, and some things not done should be(some tort reform for example).
Redress is so drunk on UHCoolaid that he/she/it can't imagine conniving Democrats proposing that later. Redress is liberal, so he/she/it is blind to socialism.
Bull****. You do not even know my position on UHC, but at least I have one that I can articulate beyond one line. Get back to me when you actually have something to add with content.
Hehehehehehehehe :lol:I always assume you are wrong, so don't pay much attention. What do you want my opinion on specifically? Speak up or let it go.
Yeah why don't you for once in your life, or might it actually bind you to a belief system? Then we can pound you daily on it. Or you can choose not to like usual and skate around here saying "I never said that" or "I never implied that" or "Show me where I said that".Bull****. You do not even know my position on UHC, but at least I have one that I can articulate beyond one line. Get back to me when you actually have something to add with content.
Alright, well there's this new theory I've been working on.
It's called Nannyism, and the Democrat party is keen on it.
Not really any more creative. Again, the same silliness we've heard for a hundred years or more. What is so difficult with saying I disagree with policy and explaining exactly why without going done the hyperbolic demogogory? Now, this would be something new, refreshing, deserving of debate.
demogogory? or demagoguery?
I disagree with Democrat policies because they're inherently evil and make baby Jesus cry! :lol:
What were you saying about trolling? What do you smell now? :roll:
Yes, better.
Government's role in establishing standards, ensuring fair competition, even in shaping the market particularly in the health industry allows capitalism to function.
This bill advances society's interest in universal health care even as it supports America's free enterprise-based health care system.
All partisan blow or exaggerated media hype. As someone that is married to an educator, and has substituted at several public school systems, our public school system is perfectly capable of doing a good job of education. However for that to happen three things have to happen:
1. The student needs to want to learn.
2. The parents need to care and get involved in their child's education to motivate the child.
3. The politicians need to get out of the hair of the educators and allow the educators to do their job and stop coming up with under or unfunded mandates or ridiculous requirements. My wife spends an inordinate amount of time just dealing with the bull**** the politicians come up with vs. actual teaching time. She spends at least 15 hours a day at school just to get e
532
verything done because of that crap.
BTW to put all this on a one political party is so silly it's almost laughable. So Bush's NCLB flop was a democrat thing? Please. :roll:
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.
The competition should be about keeping overhead costs low and delivering the best service; not how clever these insurance companies can be in denying benefits to the unfortunate people who have bought their products and have the temerity to submit claims.
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.
Just checking
In general I disagree with the scope of Democrat policies. I'm more of a less bureaucracy, more effectively written regulation kind of guy. Democrats want to increase the physical size of government to increase its efficiency and to assist the citizens. This is their socialist lean, creeping in on things that the Citizens can, and often choose not, to do for themselves. However, almost all politicians nowadays, regardless of lean, are for bigger government as it serves to keep them in control and their pockets fat.
Better?
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.
The competition should be about keeping overhead costs low and delivering the best service; not how clever these insurance companies can be in denying benefits to the unfortunate people who have bought their products and have the temerity to submit claims.
a laudable accomplishment, congrats
but was it really necessary to FORCE 20 million americans to buy something they can't afford in the first place to achieve it?
do we really have to cut m and m half a T to get pre existing conditions?
couldn't we have achieved that fine reform without putting 200B of mandates upon already bankrupt states?
must we really account 10 years of taxes vs 6 of outlays to achieve deficit neutrality?
etc?
etc?
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.
The competition should be about keeping overhead costs low and delivering the best service; not how clever these insurance companies can be in denying benefits to the unfortunate people who have bought their products and have the temerity to submit claims.
I'll even give you one better. For the ones that were able to recover, insurance or lack thereof also had nothing to do with it.
On the topic of keeping overhead costs low, what do you think about getting rid of HMOs? Tort reform?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?