Breaking: GOP Removing Protection for Pre-Existing Conditions from AHA...

[Rex Kwon Do]

You guys listening to this "debate"

 

[*Z*]

lol

 

[cooks1]

I'm just pointing out how you liberals are either women, or nu males. You should be the one using that.

When I start telling people they probably torture animals like little bitches, that they are total cunt bags, and they want to bag ugly hipsters, I'll take it off you. Until then, you need it more than me. Just take one and have a nap. I promise you will feel better when you wake up.

 

[luckyshot]

Sure. And we could save $18.5 trillion by nuking the entire country to atoms.

Lol. A tip of the hat for that, sir.

Reminds me of:

 

[chardog]

Who knew healthcare was so complicated!?

not really that complicated, other countries have working formulas

in america, burying our head is quite common.

 

[Mondo Freaks]

LMAO. They pulled the vote. Fucking 'tards. LMAO. GOP and Trump are a bunch of scrubs. LMAO

 

[San Toki]

When I start telling people they probably torture animals like little bitches, that they are total cunt bags, and they want to bag ugly hipsters, I'll take it off you. Until then, you need it more than me. Just take one and have a nap. I promise you will feel better when you wake up.

You had nothing better than a "NO U!" response? Terrible.

 

[panamaican]

If it's bargains you like, answer me this. What kind of prices could you negotiate for goods and services from multiple providers if you were 90% of the nations market for that good or service?

Damn good ones.

People are thinking way too binary on this. Wanting the best possible bargain doesn't equate to being anti-single payer. And wanting efficient government doesn't equate to that either.

A good deal is a good deal. We're already in the healthcare business both via Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. I'm not caught up in the form of a good deal, I'm only concerned on if it's actually good. My only real issue with the ACA was the mandate and the SCOTUS said that it was constitutional so I don't have a valid argument against it anymore.

But I'm a grown up and that means that if my previous assumptions were wrong then I have to update my understanding of the world.

The ACA as currently constituted is a decent deal. It could be better. The AHCA as proposed was a shitty deal. Single payer could be set up to be a great deal but it also be negotiated to be crap as well.

Personally, if you want to run a true, competitive free market healthcare system without significant government intervention it could be done. First, remove the AMA limitations on new med schools. Government could step in to fund more residencies though. We could also recruit more doctors from overseas. Remove the barriers for who can open a medical practice while keeping the restrictions in place for who can write prescriptions. Remove the state barriers for insurance competition and make it easier for doctors to re-license if they move. Stop blocking the reduction in Medicare reimbursements that has been blocked by Congress for the last 10+ years.

Increase the supply of independent medical providers (not just doctors), increase the competition among insurers, decrease the barriers to entry into new markets. Give the government more negotiating leverage. It will gradually push down the cost of medical care. Drug costs will be an issue but as the market moves towards volume over premium, even that will change. Besides the majority of costs are accrued in the last few years of life, that will create a different market for them.

Or you go single payer and still enact most of what I just said. The point is that just going single payer doesn't mean we'll get a good deal.

 

[ralphc1]

Its a good step for the market. Why should insurance company insure already sick people and lose money. The free market will take care of those with pre existing conditions

The insurance companies are the free market!

 

[MiniCraque]

Nobody other than you, I guess. And based on how hypocritical and blindly Team Democrat your reaction is, you better hope nobody else does.


Then so is Chavettz.


Obama didn't specifically say iPhone, you're right. He said cable bill and cell phone bill (suggesting they shouldn't have cable or any cell phone until they paid for Obamacare).


I don't think you should be lumping in most people when you are clearly a biased hypocrite. And this video wasn't meant to educate people, just to remind them of the hypocrisy of the Democrats, why they lost and why they're on their way toward losing again in 2018, probably even 2020. Your rustled response adds some pizzazz to it, though, thank you.

Ok, buddy. Basically all of your posts are targeting Democrats/Obama and yet you're the one to pull the bias card. What a piss poor cop out. Rustling, bias, team... you got any more buzzwords to camouflage your lack of a real post?

So let's go over this in a way you can follow: Chaffetz and Obama both argued about buying health insurance and talked about other expenses, namely phones. That's where the comparison ends. I know it's easier to just hear "hurr durr phones" and think they're saying the same thing, but part of not being a clueless idiot involves looking at statements in their appropriate context (which a 5 seconds clip doesn't really allow, but I won't focus on that since Obama's argument was still pretty clear) and actually identify the point each person is attempting to make.

Obama said the health insurance industry suffers from adverse selection, in that a lot of times people aren't interested in it because they don't think they'll need it. He then contextualizes (look it up in the dictionary) by saying a big part of why people behave that way is because they have other expenses and, since health insurance is expensive, it's even harder for those people to justify acquiring it. Explaininng that is mostly aimed at justifying the need for a mandate (something people like Chaffetz are trying to repeal) so that people who don't need it immediatelly pitch in and help those that do (idiots call this socialism, others call it insurance). Making healthcare affordable also helps this by eliminating some of the opportunity costs of acquiring it. What he's saying essentially is that people naturally behave in a way that doesn't create the optimal result for everyone and perhaps even themselves, and the AHCA aims to change that in various ways.

Chaffetz was saying that, if the repeal or the stillborn replacement bill made it harder to buy insurance for those that already wanted in the first place, they should just suck up and save money by not buying the latest iPhone (something that most poor people don't do anyway). He's taking stuff away from them and telling them to handle it (a classic part of the "fuck you I got mine" philosophy), not realizing the opportunity costs are not equal (nobody is complaining about not being able to afford health insurance while buying the latest iPhone), in fact they're not even close. Not buying a fucking phone won't move a lot of people from uninsured to insured the same way not buying cigarettes won't move a lot of people from homeless to home owners. The point he made was ignorant, patronizing and aimed at justifying the abomination that is the replacement bill.

 

[Chris Kyle is a liar]

If they fuck this up they are going to lose control of Congress the next election.

I hope they fuck it up then

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Its a good step for the market. Why should insurance company insure already sick people and lose money. The free market will take care of those with pre existing conditions

Pre-existing conditions include a myriad of shit that has nothing to do with a persons health.

I had surgery for scoliosis when I was 8. Despite the fact that it was corrected and the fact that I ran track, played baseball, and wrestled and was fit as a horse - I still had a pre-existing condition.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Ok, buddy. Basically all of your posts are targeting Democrats/Obama and yet you're the one to pull the bias card. What a piss poor cop out. Rustling, bias, team... you got any more buzzwords to camouflage your lack of a real post?

So let's go over this in a way you can follow: Chaffetz and Obama both argued about buying health insurance and talked about other expenses, namely phones. That's where the comparison ends. I know it's easier to just hear "hurr durr phones" and think they're saying the same thing, but part of not being a clueless idiot involves looking at statements in their appropriate context (which a 5 seconds clip doesn't really allow, but I won't focus on that since Obama's argument was still pretty clear) and actually identify the point each person is attempting to make.

Obama said the health insurance industry suffers from adverse selection, in that a lot of times people aren't interested in it because they don't think they'll need it. He then contextualizes (look it up in the dictionary) by saying a big part of why people behave that way is because they have other expenses and, since health insurance is expensive, it's even harder for those people to justify acquiring it. Explaininng that is mostly aimed at justifying the need for a mandate (something people like Chaffetz are trying to repeal) so that people who don't need it immediatelly pitch in and help those that do (idiots call this socialism, others call it insurance). Making healthcare affordable also helps this by eliminating some of the opportunity costs of acquiring it. What he's saying essentially is that people naturally behave in a way that doesn't create the optimal result for everyone and perhaps even themselves, and the AHCA aims to change that in various ways.

Chaffetz was saying that, if the repeal or the stillborn replacement bill made it harder to buy insurance for those that already wanted in the first place, they should just suck up and save money by not buying the latest iPhone (something that most poor people don't do anyway). He's taking stuff away from them and telling them to handle it (a classic part of the "fuck you I got mine" philosophy), not realizing the opportunity costs are not equal (nobody is complaining about not being able to afford health insurance while buying the latest iPhone), in fact they're not even close. Not buying a fucking phone won't move a lot of people from uninsured to insured the same way not buying cigarettes won't move a lot of people from homeless to home owners. The point he made was ignorant, patronizing and aimed at justifying the abomination that is the replacement bill.

Pathetic rationalization. Chaffetz was vilified for suggesting that buying an iPhone was the difference between affording insurance and not affording insurance.
Obama said the same fucking thing. He said people need to prioritize and he pointed to their cable bills and cell phone bills as examples of luxuries that could mean the difference between affording insurance and not affording insurance. I can't believe you typed all that shit just to spin something as cut and dry as the aforementioned comments. You should be embarrassed. This is exactly why the Democrats have been getting their asses handed to them the last 8 years; the blatant hypocrisy and double standards.

 

[BrianFantana]

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee a right to free public education?

It is not a federal constitutional guarantee. Jurisdiction over education rests with the states, which have enshrined it in their respective state constitutions. Notwithstanding same, various court decisions have founded the right.

A thesis on same: http://www.law.msu.edu/king/2007/Urchick.pdf

 

[BKMMAFAN]

It is not a federal constitutional guarantee. Jurisdiction over education rests with the states, which have enshrined it in their respective state constitutions. Notwithstanding same, various court decisions have founded the right.

A thesis on same: http://www.law.msu.edu/king/2007/Urchick.pdf

I think it unquestionably should be, and Rodriguez may turn out differently if ruled upon today. However, I think Rodriguez is still good law and, as such, there is no positive right to an education protected by the Constitution.