Author Topic: Health care mandate unconstitutional  (Read 3505 times)

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2010, 11:16:22 pm »
If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time. 

Fixed.

:mittens:

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2010, 11:17:01 pm »
It's not like it was that hard to find people who would let you in with a pre existing condition before (covering it was trickier, but not impossible).  Unless maybe there were ultra cheap employer plans that were refusing to cover employees with pre existings.

Oh you are SO full of shit.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2010, 11:35:31 pm »
Yes, cause in no way did the very first insurance plan I looked at when I started shopping around let people with pre existing conditions in.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2010, 11:41:24 pm »
Yes, cause in no way did the very first insurance plan I looked at when I started shopping around let people with pre existing conditions in.

I bet it was totally affordable and didn't have any treatment exclusion clauses or ridiculously low caps, too!  :lulz:

Basically, you're being gullible and naive if you just looked at the promotional materials and believed it was that simple. Plus, you're telling people who actually know better how it really is. It would be hilarious if it weren't so irritating.

Actually, it's pretty hilarious anyway.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2010, 11:47:21 pm »
Quote

I bet it was totally affordable and didn't have any treatment exclusion clauses or ridiculously low caps, too!

It wouldn't cover the pre existing condition.  I only ever saw one plan that would do that, and then only after 6 months.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2010, 11:50:30 pm »
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'?  I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2010, 02:15:56 am »
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'?  I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is the issue, not health insurance for people who have pre-existing conditions. If you have a medical condition and you get insurance that excludes treatment for that medical condition, it's virtually useless.

What you see on the insurance company's website is not a contract, it's a package. And yes, the website is promotional material, just like a brochure. They are not legally bound to offer every individual the package at the premium shown; they can and will customize it based on your individual statistics. Once you have paid for a package and they have access to your medical history, they can (and often do) deny coverage for almost anything based on a "pre-existing condition" that may or may not actually exist. This is a real and serious issue, as you may have been able to guess by the amount of discussion and political friction happening around it; it's not just that all the adults in the US, and on this forum, are a bunch of morons arguing about nothing important.

 

“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


SuuCal

  • The Goddamn Industry Professional Who
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 177135
  • Heartless and regal murderess of the intertubes.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2010, 02:29:45 am »
If this goes through...I am totally going to the hospital for something and sending the bill to my conservatard Teabagger family members.

"Thanks."
Sovereign Episkopos-Princess Kaousuu; Esq., Battle Nun, Bene Gesserit.
Our Lady of Perpetual Confusion; 1st Church of Discordia

"Add a dab of lavender to milk, leave town with an orange, and pretend you're laughing at it."

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2010, 03:05:22 am »
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'?  I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is the issue, not health insurance for people who have pre-existing conditions. If you have a medical condition and you get insurance that excludes treatment for that medical condition, it's virtually useless.

What you see on the insurance company's website is not a contract, it's a package. And yes, the website is promotional material, just like a brochure. They are not legally bound to offer every individual the package at the premium shown; they can and will customize it based on your individual statistics. Once you have paid for a package and they have access to your medical history, they can (and often do) deny coverage for almost anything based on a "pre-existing condition" that may or may not actually exist. This is a real and serious issue, as you may have been able to guess by the amount of discussion and political friction happening around it; it's not just that all the adults in the US, and on this forum, are a bunch of morons arguing about nothing important.

 



Right... but nothing in the health bill changes that substantially that I'm aware of*.  I think you may have missed my point, the pre existing 'reforms' have too many loopholes, they can still deny coverage for that condition for up to a year (by which point a person may well be dead, and as I pointed out above, that was an option already if you looked hard enough).  The only substantial change is that the coverage gap needs to be just over two months (63 days iirc) before they can do that.  Most of whats been touted as good (IE, not being able to keep you from getting insurance altogether) is something that you could do before, just not with every company.

The good things the healthcare bill does is mandate what your employer gives you, and I'm not aware of major problems with pre existing conditions from employer negotiated healthcare (the few people who bothered to sign up for the healthcare at TP did so specifically because of problems with pre existing conditions, which TPs healthcare did cover)  If you're getting healthcare direct from the insurance companies, then market forces already provided you with the options to have anything the healthcare bill mandates.

*More is slated to take effect over the next few years, and I'm not as familiar with those changes, so maybe it really will do what people think eventually.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2010, 03:22:32 am »
Is the contract on the insurance companies website somehow a 'promotional material'?  I suppose I can see them telling you you'll sign one thing then giving you something completely different.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is the issue, not health insurance for people who have pre-existing conditions. If you have a medical condition and you get insurance that excludes treatment for that medical condition, it's virtually useless.

What you see on the insurance company's website is not a contract, it's a package. And yes, the website is promotional material, just like a brochure. They are not legally bound to offer every individual the package at the premium shown; they can and will customize it based on your individual statistics. Once you have paid for a package and they have access to your medical history, they can (and often do) deny coverage for almost anything based on a "pre-existing condition" that may or may not actually exist. This is a real and serious issue, as you may have been able to guess by the amount of discussion and political friction happening around it; it's not just that all the adults in the US, and on this forum, are a bunch of morons arguing about nothing important.

 



Right... but nothing in the health bill changes that substantially that I'm aware of*.  I think you may have missed my point, the pre existing 'reforms' have too many loopholes, they can still deny coverage for that condition for up to a year (by which point a person may well be dead, and as I pointed out above, that was an option already if you looked hard enough).  The only substantial change is that the coverage gap needs to be just over two months (63 days iirc) before they can do that.  Most of whats been touted as good (IE, not being able to keep you from getting insurance altogether) is something that you could do before, just not with every company.

The good things the healthcare bill does is mandate what your employer gives you, and I'm not aware of major problems with pre existing conditions from employer negotiated healthcare (the few people who bothered to sign up for the healthcare at TP did so specifically because of problems with pre existing conditions, which TPs healthcare did cover)  If you're getting healthcare direct from the insurance companies, then market forces already provided you with the options to have anything the healthcare bill mandates.

*More is slated to take effect over the next few years, and I'm not as familiar with those changes, so maybe it really will do what people think eventually.

Uhhhhh in what way was any reasoning human being supposed to get all that out of:

It's not like it was that hard to find people who would let you in with a pre existing condition before (covering it was trickier, but not impossible).  Unless maybe there were ultra cheap employer plans that were refusing to cover employees with pre existings.

 :?

I call bullshit on that being your original "point". You said something completely, humiliatingly stupid and now you're backpedaling to save face. You'd do a better job of not embarrassing yourself by just admitting you said something stupid, and moving on.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2010, 03:28:53 am »
What the hell did you think my point was?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2010, 04:04:32 am »
It appeared, and on further consideration still appears, to be yet another glibly smug irrelevancy.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2010, 04:06:06 am »
Protip: try actually MAKING a point when you interject statements into conversations. Use your words. Try to follow the conversation so that your point at least appears to tie in to it.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Telarus

  • Fictional Ego
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 12309
  • Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2010, 04:30:49 am »
Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!

Jasper

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 67367
  • Pull-Start Enema Wasteland
    • View Profile
Re: Health care mandate unconstitutional
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2010, 04:43:52 am »
heh