- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:20 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
hese are clearly people who wanted insurance, but couldn't afford it until the ACA.
but what else did they spend their money on?
they wanted insurance, but they wanted cable too and a $400 car note. why should i care about this person's inability to manage their budget if they choose non-necessities over insurance? that's a serious question
why do you want me to pay 5x more in premiums and 4x more in deductibles to subsidize these people when i live within my budget and have consistently made good decisions? why punish me and reward them (with my money, no less)?
how does that make any sense and why do you want to enact policy that hurts me?
quote:
We were going to tackle this until some moronic party latched on to the idea of "death panels" and started scaring their ignorant voters with it...
Medicare alone will nearly bankrupt our country in the coming decades. there is no fix
quote:
Why burn the house down because a window's broken?
because you're still fricking over good decision makers to subsidize bad decision makers
that's not only irrational, but it's also immoral
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
because you're still fricking over good decision makers to subsidize bad decision makers
that's not only irrational, but it's also immoral
Preach on brother SFP.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
No, we haven't.
We've had high risk pools for people with preexisting conditions before.
Are you not aware that we've already tried this, and it failed? Weird.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
100% false
Link to the plan that can pass. Please ensure it has details, Thanks in advance!
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:26 pm to tigerfan63
quote:
If we stop this nonsense how much would it help ?
not at all.
Trump is talking about increasing war/defense spending above the sequestration level.
Trump is talking about re-doing the nuclear arsenal.
Trump will run up a Yuge debt.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So now they are insured?
IOW under GOP plans they will not lose coverage.
Right, because of the ACA they are insured. If the GOP continues with repeal without a replacement, they will no longer be insured come 2018.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:26 pm to BamaAtl
We have to pass it before we know what's on it.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:27 pm to BamaAtl
quote:As You know, insurance renders that argument irrelevant.
Not the definition of a high risk pool. You know that.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they wanted insurance, but they wanted cable too and a $400 car note. why should i care about this person's inability to manage their budget if they choose non-necessities over insurance? that's a serious question
The instinct to live is stronger than the instinct to drive an impala. Most of the people helped by the ACA don't fall into the category your'e describing.
quote:
why do you want me to pay 5x more in premiums and 4x more in deductibles to subsidize these people when i live within my budget and have consistently made good decisions? why punish me and reward them (with my money, no less)?
I don't, and let's look at ways to tweak the law. But if the alternative is you paying a bit more, or them not having insurance, I'll take the former every time.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:31 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
We've had high risk pools for people with preexisting conditions before.
Neat.
quote:
Are you not aware that we've already tried this, and it failed?
Aren't you a doctor? You should know more about this.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
As You know, insurance renders that argument irrelevant.
As you clearly should know, once the pre-existing condition ban is removed those people will no longer have insurance outside of a high risk pool.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:32 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Neat.
Are you even aware what we're arguing here? I'm thinking no, so maybe we should move on.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:33 pm to BamaAtl
quote:If frogs had wings . . .
Right, because of the ACA they are insured. If the GOP continues with repeal without a replacement, they will no longer be insured come 2018.
It appears you've not taken time to review MD-related replacement plans? e.g. Price or Paul?
This post was edited on 1/15/17 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:33 pm to BamaAtl
Obama shouldn't have passed the law without bipartisan support. And he shouldn't have lied to pass it.
Elections have consequences!
Elections have consequences!
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:35 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Are you even aware what we're arguing here?
I am. I'm just wondering what you actually know about the topic.
quote:
maybe we should move on
Maybe...
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I am. I'm just wondering what you actually know about the topic.
A fair bit, what would you like to know?
Spoiler: they don't work.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:39 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Care is not a politically partisan issue. So why are you so politically partisan in addressing it.
Are you even aware what we're arguing here?
The ACA is done!
Come up with better suggestions.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Price or Paul?
Neither plan covers the same number of people at a lower cost, which are the stated goals of Republicans. Given that, neither will pass. Got one that will?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:39 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
A fair bit, what would you like to know?
Let's start small. Do you understand the difference between the previous system, and what's been proposed? Check your link for details.
Popular
Back to top



0




