MY HEALTH INSURANCE WAS CANCELLED!!!

Bottom line.......the radical socialists in the senate are scared..........really 2014 scared.........

Source: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_24509632/p ... y-colorado

OP: Premise of health coverage being cancelled/repeat of cries from across country

Responses to OP: Well, it was originally posted by ViceLord, he loves to make people's skin crawl, and people continue to take the bait.

The source above is in reference to the new "brosurance" ads. First, I saw the headline on FoxNews and thought "this is fake," then I saw that the Denver Post is reporting on it, and I still thought "this is fake," but is it really? It's probable given the said sources from other sources like above (this is the main stream media we're talking about though), given that the current administration is a bunch of wealth distributing idiots. However, in their defense, I still hold the opinion that the other side of the aisle is equally corrupt and idiotic, so there we have it, back at square one. The one thing I believe from politicians anymore is that they are living breathing people like the rest of us, but that's pushin it. Criminetlies.

Edit: [sarcasm]Meanwhile, let's keep interest rates at zero and continue our money printing frenzy to satisfy debts (that's with FAKE money backed by nothing, I hope you know this), keep " fighting terrorism" and help out the poor and needy, it's the "humane" and "American" thing to do.[/sarcasm]

archer wrote: Why is the mandate such an issue for health insurance but auto insurance is not?

I thought that particular strawman had been exposed for what it was already, an entirely invalid argument. We'll start with the fact that you only have to purchase auto insurance if you own a car and you drive the car on a public road. You can own a vehicle and drive it on your private property without purchasing either insurance or registering that vehicle with the State. We'll also note that you are not compelled to purchase automobile insurance to operate a bike on the public roads or in order to ride public transportation. Your failure to purchase automobile insurance if you don't own a car, or if you ride a bike instead of inside a car, doesn't subject you to being taxed by the federal government for your failure to purchase a car and insurance either.

There are two instances where your argument is invalid, only one is necessary to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument.

archer wrote: The subject is, and was, health insurance. And don't act like people haven't been using emergency rooms for their routine health care needs costing us all higher premiums and health care costs.

Indeed they have. And why is that? Might it be because of another federal mandate foisted on the States that required an emergency room to treat people with no insurance when they had the sniffles? Would those people be using emergency rooms for routine care in the absence of that prior federal mandate?

So once again, a failed federal policy is the the basis upon which the collectivists base their arguments for more interference. Charity hospitals were already treating anyone regardless of their ability to pay before the federal government decided to use force to compel all hospitals to do the same. My BIL, a family physician, has been discriminating in what he charges ever since he first started practicing medicine. Those using insurance to pay his fees pay full price. Those who paid for their own care out of pocket received a discount because there was less work involved in getting paid. One who was truly in need of care and truly unable to pay were treated at little or no cost as an individual act of charity on his behalf. But guess what happens now that everyone has insurance archer - he gets to charge full price to everyone because everyone, except illegal aliens and their citizen children, is now required, using the force of government, to have insurance. So tell me, is the cost of obtaining care from my BIL going to go up or down in the aggregate? Is his practice going to make more, or less, money now on a yearly basis?

Oh, and yes, my BIL is an "evil" conservative, just like me.

One other thing. That emergency is staffed and operating even if there is not a single person in the waiting room. There is, in fact, a static cost attached to operating an emergency room that has to be covered. The (un)Affordable Care Act has done nothing to lower that cost, nor has it done anything to lessen the demand that will be placed on those emergency rooms to provide primary care services because illegal aliens, along with their citizen children, are exempted from the individual mandate contained in the (un)Affordable Care Act. So who is going to be picking up the tab for their care? That's right, the very same people who were picking it up before, the people who have insurance.

The federal government estimated that upwards of 40 million were uninsured prior to passing the (un)Affordable Care Act. It also estimates that there are around 12 million illegal aliens residing in the Union at this time (a low estimate in my opinion). The estimates of the uninsured included those who, like myself when I was young, chose to pay for care out of pocket when it was needed rather than throw their money away purchasing health insurance that they were very unlikely to be needing on a regular basis. When I had a sore throat, I paid the $100 or so dollars for the office visit out of pocket. When my hand needed to be stitched up when I was injured I paid for that cost as well. When I injured an ankle playing soccer I paid to have the ankle examined and Xrayed out of pocket, along with the cost of the air-cast to immobilize the ankle.

You, along with Obama and the rest of the collectivists in Congress, have confiscated the freedom to make that choice from today's young people. How proud you must be that you have taken yet another step to deny them the right to live their lives as they choose. How proud you must be that you now have more control over how they spend the fruits of their labor. How proud you must be that you have taken their money out of their control and placed it under yours.

2018. Remember this date VL, that is when the tax on Cadillac plans cuts in, so your insurance will either have to raise rates, or cut benefits or worse.
They wrote the bill in such a way as to only piss off 10% of the nation per year.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Why is the mandate such an issue for health insurance but auto insurance is not?

I thought that particular strawman had been exposed for what it was already, an entirely invalid argument. We'll start with the fact that you only have to purchase auto insurance if you own a car and you drive the car on a public road. You can own a vehicle and drive it on your private property without purchasing either insurance or registering that vehicle with the State. We'll also note that you are not compelled to purchase automobile insurance to operate a bike on the public roads or in order to ride public transportation. Your failure to purchase automobile insurance if you don't own a car, or if you ride a bike instead of inside a car, doesn't subject you to being taxed by the federal government for your failure to purchase a car and insurance either.

There are two instances where your argument is invalid, only one is necessary to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument.

Automobile insurance is mandated by the state, not the federal, government and not all states require it. New Hampshire comes to mind.

Unlike almost every other state, New Hampshire does not automatically require motorists to carry an auto liability insurance policy or provide some of financial backing in order to drive a vehicle within its boundaries.

http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/car-insurance.php

My Mom's most basic plan option is 3x the rate with less coverage.

I asked who she voted for, she did not answer....

Mary Scott wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Why is the mandate such an issue for health insurance but auto insurance is not?

I thought that particular strawman had been exposed for what it was already, an entirely invalid argument. We'll start with the fact that you only have to purchase auto insurance if you own a car and you drive the car on a public road. You can own a vehicle and drive it on your private property without purchasing either insurance or registering that vehicle with the State. We'll also note that you are not compelled to purchase automobile insurance to operate a bike on the public roads or in order to ride public transportation. Your failure to purchase automobile insurance if you don't own a car, or if you ride a bike instead of inside a car, doesn't subject you to being taxed by the federal government for your failure to purchase a car and insurance either.

There are two instances where your argument is invalid, only one is necessary to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument.

Automobile insurance is mandated by the state, not the federal, government and not all states require it. New Hampshire comes to mind.

Unlike almost every other state, New Hampshire does not automatically require motorists to carry an auto liability insurance policy or provide some of financial backing in order to drive a vehicle within its boundaries.

http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/car-insurance.php

You are still very much liable in NH, it just may drive you into the poorhouse. Insurance is just that.

Everyone buys education insurance through the govt.

The first dozen times I saw it I was sure we were being punked. Apparently it is real and clearly illustrates the lefts contempt for women.

It will be interesting to see if they continue to ignore it or attempt to rationalize it.

Hippie Love Fest wrote: Archer, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about this?

In your opinion, does this elevate women? Is this really what feminists of days gone by truly fought for? Do you believe casual sex is a government entitlement?

Just wondering...

That is not real is it?

Geez, if it was, after they encourage girls to have sex because all they were missing was free birth control....does Obama help them with their STDs and AIDS?

Honestly if that is real, it does show how low folks that want people to sign up are willing to go. That add prioritizes getting people to sign up over STDs. But, if you think about it STDs are good for everyone administering the ACA, more patients, more bills (likely overcharged) so that you can keep the poor doctors and govt administrators paid. You have to remember, most of these young girls had 2 parents that worked and only a public education that told them to listen to everything the govt tells them. They were never given the tools to understand an ad like that. Just the tools to lust after that inbred looking Ryan Dude.