APP - Emergency Rooms as Healthcare

ib1yysguy said:
The only difference mandated in HR 3200 is the fact that they can't drop you from coverage if you get sick and they can't deny coverage because of preexisting conditions.
Click to expand...

what a lie.....there is one really big difference that you seem to ignore.....after day one, no insurance company can offer you an insurance plan that THEY have designed....they can only offer you an insurance plan that the government has designed.....sort of like Chevrolet......why is the government afraid of companies having the opportunity to design, promote, and sell me something in the future that might be BETTER than the government plan.....
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
Yeah sucks to have someone quote your own words contradicting yourself in the same thread.

First you say you have to take the government plan, then you backpedal backpedal backpedal to say well you can't buy the exact same policy. There's quite a difference in those two statements. One of them is totally a lie. Can you guess which one?
Click to expand...

why is this so difficult for you....the fact that you can only buy "the exact same policy" from either the government or a private company is WHY we are stuck with the government plan.....are you so enamored of socialism that this doesn't offend you?........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why is this so difficult for you....the fact that you can only buy "the exact same policy" from either the government or a private company is WHY we are stuck with the government plan.....are you so enamored of socialism that this doesn't offend you?........
Click to expand...

Poppycock! Whose quotation is "exact same policy"? More of your dishonest gobbledeegook. The choice is expanded for the individual and you have not been given permission by your lying gurus to admit it. The section, EDITED by you, and the entire law, expand the rights of policyholders. The policies do not have to match, another lie. They have to fall within the law as they do today. Your gurus seem to be taking exception to guaranteed family coverage and existing condition rules under the new law as do the insurance companies who also object. My, what a coincidence!
I give you no credit for individual thought, but facts are facts, not subject to change by dogma which you and yours have placed ahead of truth and country.
Your insurance company going out of business analogy is ridiculous, even now you could not buy the exact policy from another company. The difference is that under the new law, if there were any pre-existing conditions, they would be covered by the new company. You wouldn't have that benefit now.
(Again, I call attention to the fact that previously you were adamant that a government policy would be the only choice and now the tune has changed to saying you can buy government OR private policies but they will both be the same because both must adhere to the law.) Which of your dishonest scoundrels did you get your "socialism" ploy from? Do I smell Hannity?
I repeat, POPPYCOCK!
 
as to the private/public issue....

all i see is the government mandating the minimum policy that insurance cos offer, not at all getting rid of private ins cos....to me, this is akin to forcing you to get the minimum liab coverage for your auto ins. this isn't strictly socialism and i don't know what exact category it fits, as it is basically forcing all of us to spread the wealth (risk and med payments) around....

by forcing ins co to accept preexisting conditions you will undoubtedly have far higher premiums than we have now. further, my understanding is, that if you don't have health care, much like auto, you will be forced to purchase h/c, if not like auto you will be fined. IMO, this is completely unconstitutional. with auto i don't see a big constitutional issue as driving is a privilege, not a right. IMO, we should have the liberty to not buy health ins.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Is USF retarded? The answer? Just as short as the bus he used to ride to school...

Yes.
Click to expand...

Are you still using the same tow truck, to haul your fat ass around, that you used as a child; or did you have to upgrade and get one of the ones large enough to haul a diesel truck??

By the way, hows the "hand modeling" working out?
I heard you were trying to step up and become a fluffer, for a movie set.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sure it's working....shucks if we still had a Chrysler dealer I would buy one....they have this matching program so I could get $9000 in total credits for my son's winterbeater jeep that has to be replaced by next winter.....just because the US taxpayers are stupid enough to give me that much money for something worth a hundred bucks tops.....oh wait, it wasn't the taxpayer's idea....it was the governments.....
Click to expand...

Wait just a minute, you have to quallify for the "up to $4,500".
If your vehicle was already worth $2,000, then you would only qualify for up to an extra $2,500.

Gee, I wonder what all the more disadvantaged are going to buy; seeing as how all the $2,500 and under vehicles are going to end up as scrap metal??
I also wonder how many junk yards are now going to be put out of business.
 
Fish said:
Sorry sick people, you should pull on your bootstraps harder. What? Oh, broken arms? Well use your teeth then, nobody ever got a leg up with a government hand out. What? Oh they have? Well, we don't want ANY socialized medicine in this country! What? Oh, we already have some forms of it? Well, sorry sick people you should pull on your bootstraps harder...
Click to expand...

You made a choice to be in school and that is part of what is hindering your ability to be self supporting.
Some people choose to provide for themselves and forgo Collage.
Are you saying you were FORCED to go to Collage??
 
belme1201 said:
You're hopeless, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. Where does it say government plan? It refers only to rules governing insurers plans under the new law but allowing policies written before(GRANDFATHERED) the law goes into effect to remain, thus giving policy holders a choice. It's obvious you and yours fear truth, and so, you avoid it.
I repeat, you have my pity.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't want to address what was presented, concerning the business going out of business or the insurance company folding.

Why was that.
 
belme1201 said:
Whose quotation is "exact same policy"?
Click to expand...

"exact same policy"...."exactly similar plan"......144 of one, a dozen, dozen of the other.....it came from ibbie....

The choice is expanded for the individual
Click to expand...
how can you pretend that's true....all you can buy after day one is a policy than conforms to the requirements of the government proscribed plan.....

They have to fall within the law as they do today.
Click to expand...
no, they have to fall within the new act....

Your gurus seem to be taking exception to guaranteed family coverage and existing condition rules under the new law as do the insurance companies who also object.
Click to expand...

strawman....you know those aren't the only changes....

(Again, I call attention to the fact that previously you were adamant that a government policy would be the only choice
Click to expand...
and again, I point out that is true....every policy available for purchase will be required to conform to what the government decides a policy must look like....
if you don't recognize socialism when you see it, I can't help you....all I can do is try to stop you....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm very angry and I disagree wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...

did iraq or afghanistan ever rquire more money than anticipated?

as far as i can tell, the program is a success, in that, it accomplished what obama et al wanted....do i like my tax dollars again subsidizing auto dealers, no....but the program can not be a failure
 
Last edited by a moderator:
USFREEDOM911 said:
I see you didn't want to address what was presented, concerning the business going out of business or the insurance company folding.

Why was that.
Click to expand...

I did address it, you must have missed it.
If BCBS goes broke today, where is the guarantee I can find the same policy and coverage elsewhere? In this state it would be virtually impossible because there isn't anywhere else to go for a financially stable, honest insurer. In this state BCBS and Medicare are far and away the major carriers. In addition, with my wife's history of cancer, it would likely be impossible to find an insurer to cover her.
I would welcome a law that would require insurers to cover my wife's pre-existing condition or continue the coverage I had while employed by a company that failed which is precisely what the new bill would do if it came to the above situations. Thus my rights have been expanded, not diminished by the new law and thus it is opposed by insurance companies and their paid lackies.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
"exact same policy"...."exactly similar plan"......144 of one, a dozen, dozen of the other.....it came from ibbie....


how can you pretend that's true....all you can buy after day one is a policy than conforms to the requirements of the government proscribed plan.....


no, they have to fall within the new act....



strawman....you know those aren't the only changes....


and again, I point out that is true....every policy available for purchase will be required to conform to what the government decides a policy must look like....
if you don't recognize socialism when you see it, I can't help you....all I can do is try to stop you....
Click to expand...

I welcome your last statement, it is an opinion and your reason to oppose me. It is resorting to lies to further that opinion that I object to. If you want to discuss politics and policies with truth you will have my respect, but when you reflect the lies being told you without checking their veracity, you will find me there to correct them. I can only recommend that when you hear the "stuff", check it out. In the words of R. Reagan, "Trust but verify". You should be even more perturbed when it is your own trying to mislead you than with one with views other than your own.
 
Last edited:
belme1201 said:
I would welcome a law that would require insurers to cover my wife's pre-existing condition or continue the coverage I had while employed by a company that failed which is precisely what the new bill would do if it came to the above situations. Thus my rights have been expanded, not diminished by the new law and thus it is opposed by insurance companies and their paid lackies.
Click to expand...

so create a government option WITHOUT a provision that prevents existing companies from 1) taking on new clients and 2) creating new options that have not been designed by the government....
 
belme1201 said:
I welcome your last statement, it is an opinion and your reason to oppose me. It is resorting to lies to further that opinion that I object to. If you want to discuss politics and policies with truth you will have my respect, but when you reflect the lies being told you without checking their veracity, you will find me there to correct them. I can only recommend that when you hear the "stuff", check it out. In the words of R. Reagan, "Trust but verify". You should be even more perturbed when it is your own trying to mislead you than with one with views other than your own.
Click to expand...

/boggle....the only ones I see misleading are folks like you who try to deny what the statute states.....
 
other less often discussed provisions of the proposed code....

dental care and vision care?.....free braces for all?....

"essential benefits" are defined to include

page 28, beginning at line 18
18 (10) Well baby and well child care and oral
19 health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and
20 supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I see you didn't want to address what was presented, concerning the business going out of business or the insurance company folding.

Why was that.
Click to expand...

Adding to my last reply, I would also like to see the bill allow me to buy drugs legally anywhere I can find them at a lower price, would allow Medicare to save 100s of billions by negotiating for better prices, would forbid drug companies from selling for less elsewhere than in their own country, and would end the necessity of bankruptcy for those who have suffered from catastrophic medical costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top