• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare!!! Suck It Conservatives!!!

Mayhem

Banned
Your post proves what a stupid FUCK you are. If you had a medical condition, you should have seen a MEDICAL DOCTOR, not some chiropractic quack! Your fault, not my party's fault. But, what the hell, blame Bush.

I was referred to the chiroprator by an MD. Who is the stupid fuck now? Seriously, who is the stupid fuck now? You and every other dipshit Con on this thread. Like your buddy Justaman and his comprehension problems. And eyesight problems.

And you still haven't answered the question have you, stupid fuck.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
You do realize all Obama had to do was open up free competition of healthcare across state borders and you would have received coverage, at a competing (lower) cost, for your pre-existing condition. It's called the free market and competition amongst companies drives prices down. It happened to car insurance so it would have inevitably occurred within health insurance. Now, this albatross of a tax will cost us upwards of over $15 Trillion dollars. AND, we still don't know what's in it ("We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" Nancy Pelosi).

You do realize that is not how business works, don't you? The stated, fiduciary purpose of a publicly traded corporation (all publicly traded corporations) is to enhance shareholder wealth, not trip over itself trying to offer the lowest possible prices to people in higher risk categories. I've often heard people claim that with greater competition, rates would somehow magically fall. And while I agree that some rates for some people might fall, why would any company rush into a market to offer lower rates to higher risk people? Through various employers, I've had policies underwritten by companies based in Texas, Michigan, California, Rhode Island, Maryland and Virginia. But those were group policies with open enrollment. What most people, who make these hopium claims, don't understand or think of is, what laws would govern the behavior of the company based in one state and selling policies in another... if they were not licensed to do business in both states??? If the laws and regulations are different in State X than State Y, which laws would prevail? And what people also fail to understand or acknowledge: there's nothing stopping health insurance companies from doing business in other states now... as long as they seek a business license in these other states.

There are certainly parts of this law that I do not agree with. I think that the provisions that would put an undue burden on small businesses do need to be addressed. But the overall direction and concept, I most certainly do agree with. If this law had been passed sooner, my local hospital might not be on the verge of bankruptcy right now.
 
You do realize that is not how business works, don't you? The stated, fiduciary purpose of a publicly traded corporation (all publicly traded corporations) is to enhance shareholder wealth, not trip over itself trying to offer the lowest possible prices to people in higher risk categories. I've often heard people claim that with greater competition, rates would somehow magically fall. And while I agree that some rates for some people might fall, why would any company rush into a market to offer lower rates to higher risk people? Through various employers, I've had policies underwritten by companies based in Texas, Michigan, California, Rhode Island, Maryland and Virginia. But those were group policies with open enrollment. What most people, who make these hopium claims, don't understand or think of is, what laws would govern the behavior of the company based in one state and selling policies in another... if they were not licensed to do business in both states??? If the laws and regulations are different in State X than State Y, which laws would prevail? And what people also fail to understand or acknowledge: there's nothing stopping health insurance companies from doing business in other states now... as long as they seek a business license in these other states.

There are certainly parts of this law that I do not agree with. I think that the provisions that would put an undue burden on small businesses do need to be addressed. But the overall direction and concept, I most certainly do agree with. If this law had been passed sooner, my local hospital might not be on the verge of bankruptcy right now.

Example how opening competition amongst states would increase occupant coverage and decrease rates:

Mayhem has a pre-existing condition, thus cannot get coverage in his state, OR he CAN get coverage, but has to pay out his ass for it. Now, if competition was opened across state borders, Mayhem could receive coverage from another state AND/OR receive coverage at a lower rate. He now has 49 (56 if you're a liberal) other states to shop for insurance.
 

ban-one

Works for panties
I know he was talking about something else, but it still works for this, and to add some humor, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the Reverend Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton:


Right on, Al. Right on. Resist we much.

I WILL NOT COMPLY
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Example how opening competition amongst states would increase occupant coverage and decrease rates:

Mayhem has a pre-existing condition, thus cannot get coverage in his state, OR he CAN get coverage, but has to pay out his ass for it. Now, if competition was opened across state borders, Mayhem could receive coverage from another state AND/OR receive coverage at a lower rate. He now has 49 (56 if you're a liberal) other states to shop for insurance.

So why don't these companies in the other 56 states get licenses to do business in Mayhem's state now? And why is it that people from all 50 (or 57) states face the very same issues when it comes to pre-existing conditions? Why would a company not offer affordable policies for people with pre-existing conditions for states in which they currently do business, yet when they sell these policies in other states, they're going to magically offer them? Sorry, but that sounds like a kilo of hopium to me.
 

StanScratch

My Penis Is Dancing!
Prediction:
Romney wins. He nixes ObamaCare. He introduces his own legislation, which happens to be almost the exact same thing. It passes. The likes of Rump, Will and Sam declare it a victory for the common people.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Yes. Whenever I think about the Nazis, the first thing I think about is healthcare:facepalm:

Whenever I think about Obama, I think about the Nazi's.

I guess it's all in how you view the evil men do.
 
Prediction:
Romney wins. He nixes ObamaCare. He introduces his own legislation, which happens to be almost the exact same thing. It passes. The likes of Rump, Will and Sam declare it a victory for the common people.

A loss of personal liberty for any American will never be a victory, regardless of whom is taking it away. Its scary that so many people on this board refuse to see it that way.

I'm glad that those in favor of this law are in the national minority.
 
Whenever I think about G.W. Bush, I think about Shemp (not Curly, Shemp). And when I think about the GOP in its entirety:


You keep talking "W" like he's relevant... He hasn't been president since the previous decade. Get some new material.
 

Mayhem

Banned
You keep talking "W" like he's relevant... He hasn't been president since the previous decade. Get some new material.

He is relevant to this discussion in that he did nothing to assist people in need of affordable insurance, and did nothing for health care in this country (except to put plenty of service members in need of a doctors care). Yet the GOP, Tea Party, Conservative element (everywhere else and on this board) are all saying how wrong Obamacare is. I find this stunning. If it were up to you guys (ooops, there I go again), absolutely nothing would be happening for the healthcare crisis on the US. Nothing. You don't have a better way. You have no way, and you seem to be fine with it.

Either come up with a better plan and show us what it is.....or shut the fuck up.
 
I simply find it hard to believe that anyone is stupid enough to continue to argue using the idea of death panels. Holy crap. That's just stupid.
 

StanScratch

My Penis Is Dancing!
A loss of personal liberty for any American will never be a victory, regardless of whom is taking it away. Its scary that so many people on this board refuse to see it that way.

I'm glad that those in favor of this law are in the national minority.



Show me the light then, big boy. Show me how exactly this will take away my freedom. And since, as you seem to think, I am quite stupid - be extremely explicit, give me links, give me charts, give me proof.
 
He is relevant to this discussion in that he did nothing to assist people in need of affordable insurance, and did nothing for health care in this country (except to put plenty of service members in need of a doctors care). Yet the GOP, Tea Party, Conservative element (everywhere else and on this board) are all saying how wrong Obamacare is. I find this stunning. If it were up to you guys (ooops, there I go again), absolutely nothing would be happening for the healthcare crisis on the US. Nothing. You don't have a better way. You have no way, and you seem to be fine with it.

Either come up with a better plan and show us what it is.....or shut the fuck up.

A combination of increased competition, encouragement of HSA HDHP, reform of medical malpractice/liability torts, transparency in medical cost, a restructuring of medicaid for low-income assistance, and the encouragement of pooling would be a good start.

There have been several proposed alternatives that don't require a federal individual mandate, you just haven't paid attention to them, or had a rational thought about their merits because you don't care to hear any other opinion than your own. There are several, reasonable alternatives that have been floated about in the last 6 months, you just refuse to give them any attention because they are sponsored by people who think differently than you do. I could post them, but you wouldn't read them anyhow, so I won't.

I understand that this issue apparently hits close to home for you, but "debating" with such emotion, as you do, is dangerous. Getting something done simply for the sake of it is ignorant. It creates such a short-sighted attitude that you may be overlooking an option that serves your interests just as well as, or even better than the current option. I understand that you have some anger over this, and believe it or not, I can sympathize with you. Working in the healthcare industry, I see people on a daily basis that struggle with this exact issue. I firmly believe that people should have easier, and cheaper access to affordable healthcare, I just disagree with the notion that people should be made to purchase health insurance if they don't want it, as well as having to pay higher taxes to pay for someone else's care. Why should I pay higher taxes because Joe Whoever drank 2 liters of vodka a day and now requires dialysis 3 times a week? Or because Bill Whatshisname went on a bender and became paralyzed when he crashed his car into a school bus full of 6 year-olds on his way to score more crank and now needs 24 hour medical care?

Easier access, more affordable, of course. But personal responsibility should play a role, and personal responsibility, for me at least, doesn't involve chipping in to cover the healthcare costs of degenerates, or even upstanding people that I don't know, or care about.

Like I said before, I'm glad people like you are in the minority on this. Not on this board, but in the general public, more people disagree with you than agree. That's a fact.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
The best thing that could have happened was single-payer universal coverage, but when the law was being written there was too much compromise. It wouldn't have mattered what was written into the bill, the republicans were going to be obstructionist pricks, regardless. Mitch McConnell- “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”. That speaks for itself, they don't give a damn.
 
Show me the light then, big boy. Show me how exactly this will take away my freedom. And since, as you seem to think, I am quite stupid - be extremely explicit, give me links, give me charts, give me proof.

How will taking away freedom of choice take away from freedom? This is a rhetorical, right?

Just in case it isn't:
You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drinks a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants.

You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. (Section 1302)

You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. (Section 1302)

You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Section 1302)

And on, and on, and on...

How is this not a blatant violation of liberty?


*And for the record, I don't believe I've ever called you stupid, and I don't think you are. I've generally leave the name calling to you and your board mates.
 

StanScratch

My Penis Is Dancing!
So drivers' insurance takes away your freedom as well? Where is the outrage over that?
 
Top