Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Yes! And your point is?
From a friend on FB, re ACA
- Thread starter tekkychick
- Start date
Yes! And your point is?
You made an absolutist statement that is not always true.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I guess you have a point to this.
That being said, do you agree with Harry when he said "he would let children die from cancer before he funds the gov't".
You put that in quotes, so I simply have to say, he never said that. But to answer your question I guess I would say...
If Harry Reid had said that, I would say I that he is in a tough spot and by not piecemealing the government he will ultimately save more children than die if he agreed to the piecemeal approach.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Wrong. You don't have to PAY for it. Let them die. You guys support euthanasia, so what is the problem?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The average profit margin of the insurance industry is typically between 5-7% on the generous side.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Wait till a child with cancer dies because of Harrys lack of action. He's going to look even more bad than he already looks.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Where are you all getting that they are limited to 20% profits?
I might could get on board with you on this one, except for the children... but that's not what was happening pre-ACA, we were simply paying for them in other more expensive ways.
Harry Reid causes cancer? Call the CDC, they should do something about this!
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
You were paying for them because of the gobblement. The gobblement passed a law stating that no hospital could turn people away. Didn't take long for people to realize they could get a free ride. So if you hate the free ride, blame gobblement for it.
You guys are unbelievable. Gobblement creates the problem, then you think they are the ones who can fix it.
That the gobblement can't create a website that can handle traffic for 500,000 people is a monumental failure and you make excuses for them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, they don't. But healthy people can determine the risk factor of getting sick. They can set aside money in case of emergency. They can choose to pay out of pocket.
Yes, the person hurt in the accident or the person that comes down with cancer etc...
Yes, it does cost a lot and yes, they are taking a risk (as wacko pointed out) that if they are unable to pay, they are going to get hit on their credit and likely be forced into BK. But again, the vast majority of people in their 20's are not going to need insurance unless they are unhealthy to begin with. The catastrophic does not hit very many of us health wise early in life.
Not necessarily invincible, a person can also know that statistically, the odds are greatly in their favor in their younger years of not needing it. Obviously this varies by individual depending on lifestyle choices etc...
I would love to see the data you are using to justify the above.
The health insurance side of the business is pretty damn predictable in terms of profitability. Again, that is not personal responsibility. You are taking away the personal responsibility and forcing the decision upon the individual as to how they choose to pay.
Except that it really doesn't. How does it help the poor? One catastrophic accident and they are still going to end up in BK. $10000 or $10000000... doesn't matter, they cannot afford it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think he is referring to Reid refusing to pass a specific bill that funds the NIH that the Reps passed in the House. That funding, as Dung alluded to yesterday, funds clinical trials to try and cure kids (and adults) of cancer etc... so if there is no funding, those programs are shut down.
Harry Reid did pass a spcific bill that funds the NIH, as well as the rest of the government.
The "gobblement" is a mirror reflecting the people.
THIS!
tekkychick
New member
And if you choose to ride a motorcycle and crash it, should I say I don't want my insurance to cover your injuries? Why are you picking and choosing what's covered?
Rateholders was the wrong word - I should have said back to the people who pay for the insurance.
tekkychick
New member
So all those people who got checks because the insurance companies made more than 20% - um - um - um. Maybe it's not so typical after all.
tekkychick
New member
It's part of the law. If they make more than that, they have to send it back to the people who paid premiums.
1) Most Americans do not have the financial wherewithal to set aside enough money in the event of a catastrophic illness, they can play the odds that they wont get sick, but when they do, often there ability to work or make money is gone, and in that event the American taxpayer ends up paying for there medical care in a substandard way that costs more than if they were properly insured.
2) The point is that the catastrophe does hit a certain percent of us. When that person is uninsured and forced into bankruptcy or in any other way does not pay for his/her medical bill, we all pay. The taxpayer pays some, those who are insured pay, simply put, those who took personal responsibility pay for those who did not!
3) Statistically a percent will get sick, I knew a girl who was 19 when she got melanoma, luckily her parents insured her but when she got kicked off her parents policy she had to quit college and take a corporate job so she could continue her treatment. Luckily, for her and the American taxpayer, and the insured of America she was not so sick she could not work.
4) Its common sense but ill look for the data. It costs more to get healthcare via Medicaid, that if the person was insured by a private company.
5) You are simply forcing the personal responsibility by requiring you pay a fine if you choose to take the risk. If you choose to risk the money of the American Taxpayer and the American who is Insured, you should pay a fee for that.
6) Well, it limits the amount the taxpayer or insured will get stuck with, if you have a $5,000 deductible the limit of liability is just that. If you don't have insurance the limit of liability is unlimited.
6)