- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,411
- Reaction score
- 67,645
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That argument turns in on itself. The purpose of this law was to cover people not covered by medicaid.
Why? Isn't this the reason for the bill? To take care of those who can't afford HC?
No not really. The bill was written so more can afford coverage but more importantly it serves to reign in the insurers who have been abusing many of us. No more denying coverage..that is a major cause of bankruptcy amoung the insured.
One purpose is to help those who AREN'T the poorest of the poor but who still can't afford health insurance — IOW, the working poor.
One purpose is to help those who AREN'T the poorest of the poor but who still can't afford health insurance — IOW, the working poor.
So you think this will force every illness to be covered?
No not really. The bill was written so more can afford coverage but more importantly it serves to reign in the insurers who have been abusing many of us. No more denying coverage.
is that a bad thing?
health-insurance companies will now be required to pay for the treatment of all illnesses. how can this be seen as anything but good?
No not really. The bill was written so more can afford coverage but more importantly it serves to reign in the insurers who have been abusing many of us. No more denying coverage..that is a major cause of bankruptcy amoung the insured.
is that a bad thing?
health-insurance companies will now be required to pay for the treatment of all illnesses. how can this be seen as anything but good?
is that a bad thing?
health-insurance companies will now be required to pay for the treatment of all illnesses. how can this be seen as anything but good?
Why? Isn't this the reason for the bill? To take care of those who can't afford HC?
Oh is it doesn't cover the "poorest of the poor". Thanks.
No not really. The bill was written so more can afford coverage but more importantly it serves to reign in the insurers who have been abusing many of us. No more denying coverage..that is a major cause of bankruptcy amoung the insured.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
One purpose is to help those who AREN'T the poorest of the poor but who still can't afford health insurance — IOW, the working poor.
In other words,be a good chap and die eh?:lamo
I've got an idea folks. Since we can tax anything now, let's tax non-stock owners, it's logical, afterall the more money in the market the better it will do. Sure, some people will lose everything but it's for the "greater good". I realize that under the commerce clause we cannot "force" anyone to buy into Wall Street but thanks to the collosal ****up by Chief Justice John Roberts and the infinite stupidity of saying we can tax anything it doesn't matter.
That means upward pressure on premiums, so it does the opposite of 'rein' it in.
why do you want Americans not being covered for their illnesses?
should they just die?
I may actually call my congressman and suggest he introduce that. I'm dead serious here.I say we tax non gun owners. they are driving up the cost of national security and police security by refusing to protect themselves adequately.
If nothing else, some of us would like to be able to purchase politices that limit the cost by limiting what things are covered by the policy. With this, that's not possible. We have to pay for coverage that we will never use.
I'll give you a personal example....
I'd love to be able to opt out of Cancer coverage, and get the savings for that in my policy.
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?