Obamacare Enrollment Estimates Less Than 50,000

londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
No you didn't London. You made a statement that the ER abuse will be magically stopped but failed to explain how or why. 6k deductible, you can't get around that. You gave one example of an OPINION that you have that has no basis in reality.

Questions asked, are you satisfied with your present health insurance/care for the first, do you support O'care for the second. You asked for links, I provided them and can keep giving more that say the same if you have that need.

FFS man, even your recaps are misguided untruths. While it's true I don't want to be forced to pay for something, I'm not even coming close to arguing from that angle. I'm arguing from the angle that you have no idea what O'care actually is or does. For proof I submit "well now people won't abuse the ER because of O'care". The right has their "the economy will collapse because of O'care" opinion too but that doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
Dude if you can't understand how having everyone pay into a system can help bring cost down I don't know what to tell you. It's not about people abusing the ER. Its about the cost that goes unpaid and in turn gets put back on you ( if you pay taxes).

It is still your turn but you seem stuck , so let me move along with my next

Health insurance plans can't refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a pre-existing health condition.
Do i have to explain how this is a good thing ??? If not your turn
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Dude if you can't understand how having everyone pay into a system can help bring cost down I don't know what to tell you. It's not about people abusing the ER. Its about the cost that goes unpaid and in turn gets put back on you ( if you pay taxes).

It is still your turn but you seem stuck , so let me move along with my next

Health insurance plans can't refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a pre-existing health condition.
Do i have to explain how this is a good thing ??? If not your turn
Click to expand...

Again, you fail to explain HOW this ER abuse will be stopped. You have also failed to explain how everyone will PAY.

I'm in favor of not denying anyone for pre-existing conditions, but I also understand this allows people to not buy insurance until necessary. There is presently no mechanism that forces people to pay. People operate in their own best interests, what economical incentive is there for someone to voluntarily give money for something they don't need or HAVE to have?

Your arguments so far is that ER abuse will stop even though a 6K deductible is still present and that everyone will pay even though there is no mechanism in place to make this happen. Your arguments are based on fantasy not reality. I thought you wanted to show me how good O'care is, not how good you THINK O'care CAN be.

You can stop playing if you want, what you are doing by continuing your line is to prove my point.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Do you drive a car ????
Click to expand...
I sure don't and because of that choice, I don't pay for car insurance either. Oops, where does your argument go now?

Car insurance requirements stem from a personal choice to own and operate a motor vehicle. Forcing an individual to buy a product from a corporate entity, simply because he/she exists is heinous, no matter how you try to justify it.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
londonfog said:
Do you choose to pay car insurance? even if you have never been in an accident your whole life.
Click to expand...
Funny you should ask.
I choose to have comprehensive insurance on all my vehicles, even though the state (not the federal government) mandates a minimum of liability.
That's the beauty of states rights and the lack of centralized government!
 
greenlikemoney

greenlikemoney

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Again, you fail to explain HOW this ER abuse will be stopped. You have also failed to explain how everyone will PAY.

I'm in favor of not denying anyone for pre-existing conditions, but I also understand this allows people to not buy insurance until necessary. There is presently no mechanism that forces people to pay. People operate in their own best interests, what economical incentive is there for someone to voluntarily give money for something they don't need or HAVE to have?

Your arguments so far is that ER abuse will stop even though a 6K deductible is still present and that everyone will pay even though there is no mechanism in place to make this happen. Your arguments are based on fantasy not reality. I thought you wanted to show me how good O'care is, not how good you THINK O'care CAN be.

You can stop playing if you want, what you are doing by continuing your line is to prove my point.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY....."intention oriented" rather than "results/facts oriented"......Everyone wants whats fair and helpful for EVERYONE, but this trainwreck is not it.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Debate break have to go open shop. Someone called off ill....but it is still your turn ginwilly.
Click to expand...
Deal, we gotta do....

You still haven't given the first, not even the first reason why O'care reduces costs. You gave an opinion on why you THINK it will, but have no reality to back up your claim other than it just will. If I have a 6k deductible and know that the hospital cares for me regardless of my ability to pay, there is incentive to make a few visits to the ER to cover my deductible so I can see a doctor without having to pay my deductible first. There is no incentive to NOT do this. There is a very real possibility that your law will lead to increased abuse of ERs. I'm not arguing that aspect as that's just opinion and conjecture, I'm arguing that the abuse will not be stopped based on deductibles and incentives.

BTW, I'm not arguing your theory, I believe it to be correct. I'm arguing that O'care is not what you are theorizing, I have shown you why, you have shown me nothing. I maintain it's still your turn as you have yet to make even 1 successful one.
 
greenlikemoney

greenlikemoney

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Do you drive a car ????
Click to expand...
I drive 3 cars. Let's examine this situation:

2013 Chevy....financed....thus, I must carry Comp/Coll so that not only am I covered, but so isn't the insurance company and the other person involved in an accident.

2004 Ford....paid off......thus, since i rarely drive it, I only carry Liability since I have made the choice that should I be involved in an accident that is my fault, the insurance company and the other party are covered. My loss is losing a paid off automobile. That is MY CHOICE.

1999 Ford ......paid off......see ^^^^^^^^. since this vehicle is only worth about $800 but is still useful to me, I made the same CHOICE as ^^^^^^^.

You see how this works without the Feds involved?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
My bike insurance is way cheaper than my car insurance. Making me buy car insurance for my bike would be like requiring women to be covered for prostrate exams.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
what do you guys fucking NOT understand?

[video=youtube;AEOpX8tmiUI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOpX8tmiUI[/video]
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
I understand this very well. So much for that highly touted British healthcare. Read the link this is what is coming our way.

~~

As many as 1,165 people starved to death in NHS hospitals over the past four years fuelling claims nurses are too busy to feed their patients.

The Department of Health branded the figures 'unacceptable' and said the number of unannounced inspections by the care watchdog will increase.

According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics following a Freedom of Information request, for every patient who dies from malnutrition, four more have dehydration mentioned on their death certificate.

Critics say nurses are too busy to feed patients and often food and drink are placed out of reach of vulnerable people.
In 2011, 43 patients starved to death and 291 died in a state of severe malnutrition, while the number of patients discharged from hospital suffering from malnutrition doubled to 5,558.
Dianne Jeffrey, chairwoman of Malnutrition Task Force, condemned the statistics.

She told The Sunday Express: 'Too many are paying the price with their lives while being deprived of the basic right to good nutrition, hydration and support.'

~~ read on it gets worse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287332/Nearly-1-200-people-starved-death-NHS-hospitals-nurses-busy-feed-patients.html
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Again, you fail to explain HOW this ER abuse will be stopped. You have also failed to explain how everyone will PAY.

I'm in favor of not denying anyone for pre-existing conditions, but I also understand this allows people to not buy insurance until necessary. There is presently no mechanism that forces people to pay. People operate in their own best interests, what economical incentive is there for someone to voluntarily give money for something they don't need or HAVE to have?

Your arguments so far is that ER abuse will stop even though a 6K deductible is still present and that everyone will pay even though there is no mechanism in place to make this happen. Your arguments are based on fantasy not reality. I thought you wanted to show me how good O'care is, not how good you THINK O'care CAN be.

You can stop playing if you want, what you are doing by continuing your line is to prove my point.
Click to expand...
I wanted you to simple name the con's whilst I name the pro...So far your only statement is I don't want to be force to have insurance. Fact EVERYONE at one point in life will need some type of medical attention. Question do you now pay into SS ???? Of course you do and when you turn 65 or are disabled you will be glad you did. Same deal with the AHCA.

I NEVER said AHCA would stop ER abuse ( hell I never used the word abuse...thats you). What I stated is everyone paying into this system can and will lower cost. You really can't understand that ??? I have went though this with my employees before AHCA. I was able to get more insurance at less cost with more of them signing up for it.

Now again lets recap

so far you have only stated that you don't want to be forced to do anything..that's your one con (so far)

My pros( thus far)
1.Will lower cost of ER and the pass down cost. <<<We have to agree to disagree here<<<

2.Makes it so you can't be turned down due to pre-existing conditions.

again I will step out of turn to add a third.

3. My oldest child is now pursuing a master's degree in graduate school. AHCA will allow her to still receive health insurance via me. She will not have to worry about finding insurance for medical needs because I can keep her on until 26. This is something very important due to her needing healthcare. All women don't use birth control pills just to stop children, some actually need them to improve a health issue..ask your wife or some female in your family
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
I sure don't and because of that choice, I don't pay for car insurance either. Oops, where does your argument go now?

Car insurance requirements stem from a personal choice to own and operate a motor vehicle. Forcing an individual to buy a product from a corporate entity, simply because he/she exists is heinous, no matter how you try to justify it.
Click to expand...
I agree

We should go straight to single payer with the option of private insurance.

Glad we are on the same side of this issue
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Helping people redistribute other people's property isn't really being "helpful", it's kind of like theft, in fact it is.
Click to expand...
how is it theft when no redistribution can take place until consent is obtained?

why so waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh? mommy forget to change your diaper again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top