quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Huh?   You may want to quote the REST of the post before taking out of context what i said.  That quote has nothing to do with what you have or what your policy covers.

I know what my policy covers -- i know what the policies of our client's cover. 

If you don't know what your policy covers then that is YOUR fault.  Go back and MAKE them tell you what exactly your policy covers.  If you don't understand it make them explain it to you.  Fuck have some personal responsibility.

Stamping your foot because you can't understand someone on a discussion board due to your own ignorance of your policy doesn't mean everyone must be ignorant.

I have no clue how insurance company's determine the rates for you or others.  I know what i pay, i know how they came to that number, i know how the other quotes did, and i know what it covers.  How do i know all of this BECAUSE I ASKED.

Your choice to remain ignorant about your stuff is your own.  Take some personal responsibility for your own ignorance.

angel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

[...The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

One does not equate to the other taz and you know it. Congress has always had the ability to regulate actual commerce. Nowhere does it state that Congress can require commerce of an individual. That's the difference. Granting them license to do so goes above and beyond the wording of the Constitution, the intent of those who wrote it, and common sense. When you give government the ability to require you as a private citizen to purchase something, you are granting them power that was never intended for them.

You are also granting them power to exercise it in any fashion they so choose thereafter. You're setting the precedent not just for this one issue, but establishing ground for the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

This isnt snark. 

If one state can be allowed to uphold the laws of another state.... curious, ya know?

I dont know where youre going with the sentence fragment. What about "upholding the laws of another state"? And wherever youre going with it, be careful to distinguish between "upholding", "recognizing", and "reciprocity".

Here is the thing.  In order to drive, you have to have insurance.  However, you dont have to drive.

Its what everyone who disagrees with the law is saying.  You dont have to drive.

Insurance is a way for those who provide health care to get paid for their services.

Im sure we can all agree upon that... either you pay, or your insurance does.

No arguments.. so far.

Here is the difference... and its something that will have to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

If you dont have auto insurance, you cant get a license plate or a DL's, in many states.  I cant say all, nor am I going to bother to look it up.

If you dont have health insurance, do you get denied emergency care?  Or course not.  Its illegal to do so.

If everyone was entitled to drive, would you agree that if they didnt want auto insurance, they wouldnt have to get it?

But everyone is entitled to some level of health care... even if it is just the ER... but it isnt just the ER, it also includes ambulance service and even hospital stays.

If health care had the option to turn away people in dire need, would that be agreeable?

Because it may come down to that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

This isnt snark. 

If one state can be allowed to uphold the laws of another state.... curious, ya know?

I dont know where youre going with the sentence fragment. What about "upholding the laws of another state"? And wherever youre going with it, be careful to distinguish between "upholding", "recognizing", and "reciprocity".

Here is the thing.  In order to drive, you have to have insurance.  However, you dont have to drive.

Its what everyone who disagrees with the law is saying.  You dont have to drive.

Insurance is a way for those who provide health care to get paid for their services.

Im sure we can all agree upon that... either you pay, or your insurance does.

No arguments.. so far.

Here is the difference... and its something that will have to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

If you dont have auto insurance, you cant get a license plate or a DL's, in many states.  I cant say all, nor am I going to bother to look it up.

If you dont have health insurance, do you get denied emergency care?  Or course not.  Its illegal to do so.

If everyone was entitled to drive, would you agree that if they didnt want auto insurance, they wouldnt have to get it?

But everyone is entitled to some level of health care... even if it is just the ER... but it isnt just the ER, it also includes ambulance service and even hospital stays.

If health care had the option to turn away people in dire need, would that be agreeable?

Because it may come down to that.

Your premise on insurance is wrong to start with. It is not a way for those who provide health care to get paid, it is a way for the users of health care to share their risk of large payments. Health care providers got paid for centuries before there was health insurance.

As far as ER care goes, it depends on your meaning of "entitled". I disagree that anyone is intrinsically "entitled" to any level of health care, so yes, the option to turn them away would be quite agreeable. But STATE mandated auto insurance has absoultely nothing to do with FEDERALLY mandated health insurance to begin with. Your whole scenario is nonsense as a result.

quote:

My point is that everyone is crying about how free health care will be given... when that isnt the case. A valid argument might be better received]

quote:

Under those guidelines, I wouldn't be given "free" insurance. I make too much money. Anyone making minimum wage and working full time wouldn't be eligible for "free".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

[...The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits.

they already do.

they force people to pay property taxes FOR SERVICES!

any wonder why our laws are so fucked up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? 

When you dont have a good argument, reach for any argument! One has nothing to do with the other, period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? 

When you dont have a good argument, reach for any argument! One has nothing to do with the other, period.

I know...it is pathetic.  It is a service LIKE ANY OTHER service.  If there should be a preference to that service to make it more accessible, that's fine, but it should come in the form of tax credits for the service providers, in my opinion.  You certainly don't impose a massive tax increase that limits innumerable liberties and imposes duties on Americans to pay for a service for other Americans.  Not to mention, an adequate reform of health care also means addressing the illegal alien population in this country and the decline of manufacturing and private sector jobs. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? 

When you dont have a good argument, reach for any argument! One has nothing to do with the other, period.

I know...it is pathetic.  It is a service LIKE ANY OTHER service.  If there should be a preference to that service to make it more accessible, that's fine, but it should come in the form of tax credits for the service providers, in my opinion.  You certainly don't impose a massive tax increase that limits innumerable liberties and imposes duties on Americans to pay for a service for other Americans.  Not to mention, an adequate reform of health care also means addressing the illegal alien population in this country and the decline of manufacturing and private sector jobs. 

I think this is the first decision that explicitly recognizes that the mandate was only there so healthy individuals would be required to subsidize the unhealthy, which goes beyond the mandate itself, but to its purpose. Not that SCOTUS would have missed it, but it makes overturning their ruling a bit more difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

My point is that everyone is crying about how free health care will be given... when that isnt the case. A valid argument might be better received]

quote:

Under those guidelines, I wouldn't be given "free" insurance. I make too much money. Anyone making minimum wage and working full time wouldn't be eligible for "free".

What percentage of the cost would you be required to pay, 100 percent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

We pay for services for others, now.

In the form of reimbursements, from states to hospitals/clinics.

That is tax-payers money,btw,going for folks who use services and can`t pay.

Unless you`re going to turn broke people away from the ER,those costs are going to be incurred.

Unless you`re going to let hospitals close,those incurred costs have to be payed.

And no one`s going to lose any liberty,much less,LOL "innumerable liberties" LOL,......what a line of bullshit there.


Those scare tactics are from and for the frightened and un-informed.