I'm a Republican, but I don't know why.

[Damocles]

Fuck off. This is exactly what you do.

I was talking about quotas very specifically in relation to healthcare, and in terms of quotas for DENYING coverage, which is against the public good. There are other areas where quotas may or may not be more beneficial, but to not acknowledge that I was talking about a specific area is inherently dishonest.

If you read further back, you will see that I believe in the free market, and in the gov't in more of an oversight capacity. I have not - nor will I - defend every government practice, and there are undoubtedly areas where they set quotas or regulations that are NOT in the interest of the overall public. I am not talking about government now; I am talking about a philosophy that I think should be applied & that might have more potential.

But you have to be a fucking idiot & chime in with a hit-the-broad-side-of-a-barn "you don't think gov'ts create arbitrary quotas", when I was talking about one specific instance.

So fuck off.

And I was as well.

No matter how many times you curse, my question was in relation to how it was to be created. It was created to give you a chance to elaborate on your position that perfection will be created through some policy of government that will somehow escape the arbitrary.

I'll ask again. You implied an arbitrary quota being in place because of policy you don't like, I want to know how perfection will ensue because of policy you do like.

 

[Onceler]

And I was as well.

No matter how many times you curse, my question was in relation to how it was to be created. It was created to give you a chance to elaborate on your position that perfection will be created through some policy of government that will somehow escape the arbitrary.

I'll ask again. You implied an arbitrary quota being in place because of policy you don't like, I want to know how perfection will ensue because of policy you do like.

And I explained it before, if you are able to read. I outlined my philosophy on this very well.

You are coming from a place where you seem to think I was arguing for gov't control of healthcare. I was not. I was arguing for gov't OVERSIGHT of questionable practices, such as setting arbitrary quotas for insurance denial. This is a practice that is not toward the public good, and which the free market - far from eliminating it - actually encourages. I also think the gov't has a place in helping reduce costs by monitoring fraud more aggressively, as well as price gouging, and things of that nature. But I think the free market should still control & be involved in most aspects of healthcare & health insurance.

Okay? Good enough for you? Should I explain it again?

 

[Damocles]

And I explained it before, if you are able to read. I outlined my philosophy on this very well.

You are coming from a place where you seem to think I was arguing for gov't control of healthcare. I was not. I was arguing for gov't OVERSIGHT of questionable practices, such as setting arbitrary quotas for insurance denial. This is a practice that is not toward the public good, and which the free market - far from eliminating it - actually encourages. I also think the gov't has a place in helping reduce costs by monitoring fraud more aggressively, as well as price gouging, and things of that nature. But I think the free market should still control & be involved in most aspects of healthcare & health insurance.

Okay? Good enough for you? Should I explain it again?

Again, has oversight never created an arbitrary set of rules? Where does this magical oversight come from?

In other words I see problems with your belief that a magical group of perfect people will provide the oversight you seek.

 

[Cancel7]

Again, has oversight never created an arbitrary set of rules? Where does this magical oversight come from?

In other words I see problems with your belief that a magical group of perfect people will provide the oversight you seek.

Stop being an asshole.

He said nothing about magical or perfection.

He is mentioning how health insurance companies can deny claims for arbitrary reasons. Now, once upon a time, not that long ago, if you changed jobs, but were never without health care coverage – in other words, your new policy picked up the day your old policy was cancelled – you could still be denied coverage if you got cancer in the first several months of your new policy, under “preexisting condition”. I know someone who died of cancer in the early 90’s in this situation and his wife lost their house afterwards.

However, legislation was then passed making it illegal for an insurance company to deny you coverage under a “preexisting condition” as long as you have had insurance over the past year, even if it was with a different carrier.
Problem solved. So if you change jobs Damo, and die of cancer, no one can take your wife’s house a way. Thank a Democrat and tell SF to shut the fuck up.

Fucking assholes. If I wasn’t a more enlightened person than either of you, I’d wish these things happened to you, so you could learn a painful lesson, because I am so sick and tired of your shit. But I don’t hope that you get sick, and your insurance company finds a way to deny coverage, and your wife and kids lose their house and become homeless. But I won’t wish that.

Know this though. Because of assholes like you? That will happen to someone’s wife and kids this week. Legislation could stop it. But don’t let that stop you and SF from babbling on and on about nothing. After all, you’ve got yours.
For now.

 

[Damocles]

Stop being an asshole.

He said nothing about magical or perfection.

He is mentioning how health insurance companies can deny claims for arbitrary reasons. Now, once upon a time, not that long ago, if you changed jobs, but were never without health care coverage – in other words, your new policy picked up the day your old policy was cancelled – you could still be denied coverage if you got cancer in the first several months of your new policy, under “preexisting condition”. I know someone who died of cancer in the early 90’s in this situation and his wife lost their house afterwards.

However, legislation was then passed making it illegal for an insurance company to deny you coverage under a “preexisting condition” as long as you have had insurance over the past year, even if it was with a different carrier.
Problem solved. So if you change jobs Damo, and die of cancer, no one can take your wife’s house a way. Thank a Democrat and tell SF to shut the fuck up.

Fucking assholes. If I wasn’t a more enlightened person than either of you, I’d wish these things happened to you, so you could learn a painful lesson, because I am so sick and tired of your shit. But I don’t hope that you get sick, and your insurance company finds a way to deny coverage, and your wife and kids lose their house and become homeless. But I won’t wish that.

Know this though. Because of assholes like you? That will happen to someone’s wife and kids this week. Legislation could stop it. But don’t let that stop you and SF from babbling on and on about nothing. After all, you’ve got yours.
For now.

He can handle himself and doesn't need a mommy to help him from the "a-hole".

The implication was, in his post, that arbitrary limits or quotas would disappear under his system. I want specifics of how he expects it to be done. If there is no specifics of how it works it is "magic". I can talk about utopia too, and so long as I don't get specific you have no right to question me?

As for people making really foolish assumptions. You should look at what you assume of my opinion on government involvement in health care before you keep making yourself look foolish.

 

[Damocles]

Basically, Darla, Oncelor, I am seeking ideas. Far more specific than "oversight". How will the oversight be implemented? Who will appoint people to it? What steps will be taken to ensure they don't step into the regular laziness of bureaucracy that creates the arbitrary?

 

[Onceler]

He can handle himself. The implication was that arbitrary limits or quotas would disappear under his system. I want specifics of how he expects it to be done. If there is no specifics of how it works it is "magic".

As for people making really foolish assumptions. You should look at what you assume of my opinion on government involvement in health care before you keep making yourself look foolish.

What's the matter with you? Where am I talking about magic?

There is a practice in the industry today that is distinctly against the public good, and that is the setting of quotas for insurance denials. The government CAN address that, and address it more effectively. At the very least, they can reduce the most overt aspects of it & be proactive about eliminating it. I don't even have a "system" yet, and I have not guaranteed that anything would "disappear."

Are you saying that you don't think this practice can be addressed in any way, and that we are stuck with a system where there are arbitrary quotas for insurance denial?

 

[Onceler]

Basically, Darla, Oncelor, I am seeking ideas. Far more specific than "oversight". How will the oversight be implemented? Who will appoint people to it? What steps will be taken to ensure they don't step into the regular laziness of bureaucracy that creates the arbitrary?

How about banning arbitrary quotas for insurance denial?

How about tax incentives for corporations that don't practice quotas on insurance denial?

How about federal guidelines for what constitutes "experimental" procedure, and what constitutes "necessary" procedure?

How about an oversight agency that works in conjunction with the medical industry to create a 3rd party appeals board for petitioners who have been denied insurance for reasons they feel are not justified?

No "magic" there...

 

[Damocles]

What's the matter with you? Where am I talking about magic?

There is a practice in the industry today that is distinctly against the public good, and that is the setting of quotas for insurance denials. The government CAN address that, and address it more effectively. At the very least, they can reduce the most overt aspects of it & be proactive about eliminating it. I don't even have a "system" yet, and I have not guaranteed that anything would "disappear."

Are you saying that you don't think this practice can be addressed in any way, and that we are stuck with a system where there are arbitrary quotas for insurance denial?

Just as somebody who has no idea how something is done may think it is magic, I am using the word to denote that idea.

Again, I understand what you are against. Oversight is good, like it fine, however what are you going to do to ensure that the arbitrary does not seep into the bureaucracy that will oversee this? How are you going to set this up to create this non-arbitrary system, and ensure that no arbitrary rules are used by those who are set to oversee those people?

I am asking you what your plan is to create this oversight, what shape it will take, and how will you ensure it does what you expect it to.

I am asking you to give me a detailed explanation of your implementation of this oversight. I can say "oversight" all day long and expect it to fix things, but without a specific plan of implementation it can take hideous forms that serve only to feed itself and end up with something far worse than what they were set to oversee.

 

[Cancel7]

Basically, Darla, Oncelor, I am seeking ideas. Far more specific than "oversight". How will the oversight be implemented? Who will appoint people to it? What steps will be taken to ensure they don't step into the regular laziness of bureaucracy that creates the arbitrary?

i GUESS i just gave you a perfect, and real example of that. If you don't recall the 90's, before the legislation was passed, that's your problem, not mine. My guess is that you were in the military then, and preexisting conditions were of no concern to you, and that was on my dime.

 

[Cancel7]

He can handle himself and doesn't need a mommy to help him from the "a-hole".

The implication was, in his post, that arbitrary limits or quotas would disappear under his system. I want specifics of how he expects it to be done. If there is no specifics of how it works it is "magic". I can talk about utopia too, and so long as I don't get specific you have no right to question me?

As for people making really foolish assumptions. You should look at what you assume of my opinion on government involvement in health care before you keep making yourself look foolish.

You are such an asshole sometimes. I guess you have to show off for SF. It must be very exciting. But you're dishonest on this thread, and frankly, you look like an outright liar.

 

[Damocles]

i GUESS i just gave you a perfect, and real example of that. If you don't recall the 90's, before the legislation was passed, that's your problem, not mine. My guess is that you were in the military then, and preexisting conditions were of no concern to you, and that was on my dime.

LOL. That would mean we have already reached perfection because the oversight you sought is already implemented. Whew, dodged that bullet there. I'm glad we live with a splendidly functioning, if not perfect, oversight of the health care system!

You gave me nothing but paltry attempts to protect another from my clever dark sarcasms.

 

[Cancel7]

Just as somebody who has no idea how something is done may think it is magic, I am using the word to denote that idea.

Again, I understand what you are against. Oversight is good, like it fine, however what are you going to do to ensure that the arbitrary does not seep into the bureaucracy that will oversee this? How are you going to set this up to create this non-arbitrary system, and ensure that no arbitrary rules are used by those who are set to oversee those people?

I am asking you what your plan is to create this oversight, what shape it will take, and how will you ensure it does what you expect it to.

I am asking you to give me a detailed explanation of your implementation of this oversight. I can say "oversight" all day long and expect it to fix things, but without a specific plan of implementation it can take hideous forms that serve only to feed itself and end up with something far worse than what they were set to oversee.

There’s no oversight needed. No magic. No faux utopia. Specific legislation solved the problem that Norm’s wife, who is a real person, lost her house from in the 90’s. It can solve this one too.
You are being openly dishonest on this thread just to be a big prick, and like I said, I hope your wife doesn’t end up paying for your assholeness the hard way, like Norm’s wife did.

Continue playing with yourself here. WE all need sex.

 

[Damocles]

You are such an asshole sometimes. I guess you have to show off for SF. It must be very exciting. But you're dishonest on this thread, and frankly, you look like an outright liar.

Frankly, I cannot lie when I seek information regardless of what you may think I "look like".

Is it because you think "oversight of" something is a plan of implementation, or do you not understand what a question is?

 

[Cancel7]

LOL. That would mean we have already reached perfection because the oversight you sought is already implemented. Whew, dodged that bullet there. I'm glad we live with a splendidly functioning, if not perfect, oversight of the health care system!

You gave me nothing but paltry attempts to protect another from my clever dark sarcasms.

It solved the specific problme I laid out, you fucking asshole.

I guess besides being a dick, now you can't read.

Fuck you Damo.

If it ever happens to you and your wife, don't come here looking for sympathy, I'll tell you, too bad.

 

[Cancel7]

Stop being an asshole.

He said nothing about magical or perfection.

He is mentioning how health insurance companies can deny claims for arbitrary reasons. Now, once upon a time, not that long ago, if you changed jobs, but were never without health care coverage – in other words, your new policy picked up the day your old policy was cancelled – you could still be denied coverage if you got cancer in the first several months of your new policy, under “preexisting condition”. I know someone who died of cancer in the early 90’s in this situation and his wife lost their house afterwards.

However, legislation was then passed making it illegal for an insurance company to deny you coverage under a “preexisting condition” as long as you have had insurance over the past year, even if it was with a different carrier.
Problem solved. So if you change jobs Damo, and die of cancer, no one can take your wife’s house a way. Thank a Democrat and tell SF to shut the fuck up.

Fucking assholes. If I wasn’t a more enlightened person than either of you, I’d wish these things happened to you, so you could learn a painful lesson, because I am so sick and tired of your shit. But I don’t hope that you get sick, and your insurance company finds a way to deny coverage, and your wife and kids lose their house and become homeless. But I won’t wish that.

Know this though. Because of assholes like you? That will happen to someone’s wife and kids this week. Legislation could stop it. But don’t let that stop you and SF from babbling on and on about nothing. After all, you’ve got yours.
For now.

Here you go you lying bastard.

Dispute this.

 

[Cancel7]

Thanks to this Damo, you can change jobs without your wife losing her house and your kids being in the street if you get sick and die.

Dispute it Damo, go ahead.

And then lay out for the board, why similar legislaton wouldn't do the same for the denials of coverage we currently see.

 

[Damocles]

There’s no oversight needed. No magic. No faux utopia. Specific legislation solved the problem that Norm’s wife, who is a real person, lost her house from in the 90’s. It can solve this one too.
You are being openly dishonest on this thread just to be a big prick, and like I said, I hope your wife doesn’t end up paying for your assholeness the hard way, like Norm’s wife did.

Continue playing with yourself here. WE all need sex.

This is projection. Again you are being disingenuous with your assumptions about my opinion. Most people on here know that I support regulation in this area. My questions were for what exact method of implementation would correct all arbitrariness, as was implied by his statement against the arbitrary in another different policy.

What policy other than "oversight" will there be?

I can create about a billion different types of oversight, each can be good or bad. Just saying "oversight" is not a plan or an answer.

 

[Cancel7]

This is projection. Again you are being disingenuous with your assumptions about my opinion. Most people on here know that I support regulation in this area. My questions were for what exact method of implementation would correct all arbitrariness, as was implied by his statement against the arbitrary in another different policy.

What policy other than "oversight" will there be?

I can create about a billion different types of oversight, each can be good or bad. Just saying "oversight" is not a plan or an answer.

I already put the posts up. YOU start laying out some specifics of why you are mocking legislation that now enables your wife and kids to keep their home if you change jobs and die.

You put some specifics on the table, asshole.

Your "debating technique" of asking mocking and dishonest questions, and then claiming "everyone knows that's not where I stand, I'm just debating" makes you look like a prick.

 

[Damocles]

Here you go you lying bastard.

Dispute this.

You really can't admit you don't know what type of oversight Oncelor wants, can you?

Now, we are having a conversation and you are interrupting with something I already answered.