09 Oct 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo you believe that a guy who paid $4000 more for his health insurance isn't worse off? By definition when everyone pays a premium for compensation for a rare contingency, when the contingency occurs (here a pre-existing condition) a small group gets a huge benefit and those who pay the premium are worse off. The idea that Joe six pack is better off because someone else with a pre-existing condition does not have to pay the fair market value for their health insurance is absolutely ridiculous.
if you buy incredibly cheap stuff made in sweatshops in vietnam, and then vietnam does the right thing and imposes decent work conditions and wages, and your cheap crap goes up in price, you shouldn't have the nerve of complaining your crap is getting more expensive.
the previous situation with the healthcare was similar. the premiums were lower beca ...[text shortened]... ut your situation and would like you to know he will be thinking about you poor innocent victim.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 98026
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot really sure what your saying here. Do you think that your 'cancer patient' is now entilted to insurance coverage because of the passage of the ACA?
if you buy incredibly cheap stuff made in sweatshops in vietnam, and then vietnam does the right thing and imposes decent work conditions and wages, and your cheap crap goes up in price, you shouldn't have the nerve of complaining your crap is getting more expensive.
the previous situation with the healthcare was similar. the premiums were lower beca ...[text shortened]... ut your situation and would like you to know he will be thinking about you poor innocent victim.
I have two friends who are healthy and can not afford the most basic plan of the ACA. They have ...no... coverage at all. It will more affordable for them to pay the fine levied on them at tax time , then to purchase this 'affordable' health care.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by quackquackHow does one determine the "fair market value"?
So you believe that a guy who paid $4000 more for his health insurance isn't worse off? By definition when everyone pays a premium for compensation for a rare contingency, when the contingency occurs (here a pre-existing condition) a small group gets a huge benefit and those who pay the premium are worse off. The idea that Joe six pack is better off be ...[text shortened]... does not have to pay the fair market value for their health insurance is absolutely ridiculous.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is a favourite of No1, so no surprises to see No1's minime parroting it.
How does one determine a price without currency? How many bear skins is a triple bypass operation?
There have been attempts to circumvent the states currency through things like barter cards, but goobermint doesn't like competition, makes it difficult for them to tax any and all transactions.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by rwingettYeh people are too stupid to appreciate what the Anointed ones set up for them. If they lose their long time family doctor, pay more in premiums and get less service they just don't know how well off they are.
Just because people say it hurts them doesn't mean it actually does.
10 Oct 14
Originally posted by boononJust the fact that the uninsured has only been reduce marginally ought to tell thinking people that there is just a shifting of who the uninsured are. Some people who didn't have insurance now do, and other who were insured now aren't.
Not really sure what your saying here. Do you think that your 'cancer patient' is now entilted to insurance coverage because of the passage of the ACA?
I have two friends who are healthy and can not afford the most basic plan of the ACA. They have ...no... coverage at all. It will more affordable for them to pay the fine levied on them at tax time , then to purchase this 'affordable' health care.
My experience tells me that there is a large group in the middle who still have insurance, which costs more and isn't as good.