Modern Republicans are Absurd

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?
[/quote]

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

42

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
K2000 wrote:

So talk about Libertarianism all you want. Because that’s basically all it ever will be… just talk.

Just talk? The original constitution is practically libertarianism defined. We were founded as a libertarian country. [/quote]

That is farther than what I would call a stretch

43

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

[/quote]

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

44

Obama has promised CHANGEEEEEE, and has convinced these ignorant, hippy, spread the wealth liberals that he has the power to change America. And so far, well…not much…o and another thing,DROP THE RACE CARD. Just because he’s a black male GOD FOFRBIDDD we ask him for his college grades, GOD FORBID we check his backround, and GOD FORBID we actually check his birth certificate…its a bunch of BS that evey little thing in Mccain’s life was over-analyzed, as well as Palin and her entire family…take that you ignorant tree huggers :slight_smile:

45

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

[/quote]

Yeah buddy, 2-7% profit is fuckin evil. This demonization of insurance is BULLSHIT!!

46

[quote]matty51189 wrote:
Obama has promised CHANGEEEEEE, and has convinced these ignorant, hippy, spread the wealth liberals that he has the power to change America. And so far, well…not much…o and another thing,DROP THE RACE CARD. Just because he’s a black male GOD FOFRBIDDD we ask him for his college grades, GOD FORBID we check his backround, and GOD FORBID we actually check his birth certificate…its a bunch of BS that evey little thing in Mccain’s life was over-analyzed, as well as Palin and her entire family…take that you ignorant tree huggers :)[/quote]

Fuck yeah!

47

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.

p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?

Beneficial Universal Healthcare, to who? It is not beneficial to me at all. So stop saying it is jackass.

How did you get such a rock solid Insurance program ?

It is called my pocket.

Have you ever had a major claim ?

Never made a claim to a health insurance co. in my life since I pay out of pocket, but I have paid for some expensive surgeries.

So you are self insured, Do you know you pay more for Medical procedures than Insurance companies do?

[/quote]

I’m not so sure of that, my time is more valuable than money. Last time my father had a surgery besides the actual surgery I spent around 100+ hours trying to do the paper work with him for the hospital/insurance trying to make sure everyone got paid.

This time office visits/check ups/paper work was about 9-10 hrs for my father. I spent a total of 15 minutes talking to the administration (I already had the price list and what an insurance company would usually pay) about payments and I usually ended up paying 80% of what insurance companies would normally pay because 1)I pay up front and 2) I pay with cash. I know not everyone can do this and that is what catastrophic insurance is for. Otherwise if I need a script I just pay out of pocket, I would rather not have to deal with two people telling me what is good for my health.

48

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

[/quote]

That is an interesting theory.

If that is so, how do they get new customers or keep their old ones?

49

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

Yeah buddy, 2-7% profit is fuckin evil. This demonization of insurance is BULLSHIT!!

[/quote]

Hell, if my underwriting business only maid 2% I would probably just sell it.

50

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

Yeah buddy, 2-7% profit is fuckin evil. This demonization of insurance is BULLSHIT!!

Hell, if my underwriting business only maid 2% I would probably just sell it.[/quote]

I would keep it even at a loss, as long as I got my 111 million dollar salary, Insurance and Banking is synonymous. They must not count their dividends in their profit . BUDDY:)

51

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

That is an interesting theory.

If that is so, how do they get new customers or keep their old ones?[/quote]

I don’t understand your question ?

52

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

Yeah buddy, 2-7% profit is fuckin evil. This demonization of insurance is BULLSHIT!!

Hell, if my underwriting business only maid 2% I would probably just sell it.

I would keep it even at a loss, as long as I got my 111 million dollar salary, Insurance and Banking is synonymous. They must not count their dividends in their profit . BUDDY:)

[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but I own businesses. I want things to grow, not just give myself a salary. That is why if I owned an health care insurance co. I would fire the management. I want dividends, not a salary. Banking is a form of underwriting when it comes to loans, yes and your point?

53

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

That is an interesting theory.

If that is so, how do they get new customers or keep their old ones?

I don’t understand your question ?

[/quote]

Well you are telling me they make money by not doing their part of the deal if what you say is correct.

Why would I make business with them if that is that way?

Why would anyone?

54

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
How did you get such a rock solid Insurance program ?

[/quote]

I wake up at 4:30am every day and work two jobs, 10 hours a day.

55

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

But what about the person who loses a job. Had health insurance through their employer, and cannot afford to ‘buy’ their policy and take the insurance with them therefore losing insurance.
[/quote]

The solution is right in front of you. Just think a bit about what you just wrote and how to fix it.

56

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

This is an interesting take on the health care issue. So from your standpoint if you’ve ever had an accident in a car then you shouldn’t be able to get car insurance (even though you show financial stability and the ability to drive safely from that point forward)?

I bring this up because I live in the pre-existing condition world. My wife sustained a back injury in 2000. Luckily she was employed so we have always been able to avoid the pre-existing condition clause (when moving from job to job as long as you were covered before they don’t deny you). But when she left the workforce if it hadn’t been for the ability to put her under my insurance (we were not married yet) she would have had no health care at all. Just for grins we had her try to apply to get her own care and they laughed and said nope pre-existing condition.

Originally Health Insurance ( Blue Cross and Blue Shield ) took all the medical bills and divided them up between all their paying members and that is how they got started. Today the object is not to insure people, it is to make as much money as possible, that means every denied claim is called profit.

That is an interesting theory.

If that is so, how do they get new customers or keep their old ones?[/quote]

and how come their returns are so low?

57

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Vires Eternus wrote:

But what about the person who loses a job. Had health insurance through their employer, and cannot afford to ‘buy’ their policy and take the insurance with them therefore losing insurance.

The solution is right in front of you. Just think a bit about what you just wrote and how to fix it.[/quote]

Don’t expect an answer, he probably won’t get it.

58

[quote]StevenF wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
How did you get such a rock solid Insurance program ?

I wake up at 4:30am every day and work two jobs, 10 hours a day. [/quote]

No fucking way, that is impossible, you mean that you actually work for your health. No one can fucking do that, you are bullshitting us. People cannot even have one job, let alone two jobs, and taking care of themselves, that is absurd that is what government is for.

59

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.

p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?[/quote]

The republican party was different in the 40s/50s. Also the military made this country the great one it is today (ex. arms race, nuclear bomb, etc). Also the constitution doesn’t say anything about health care.

“the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,”[3] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States."

60

[quote]elano wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.

p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?

The republican party was different in the 40s/50s. Also the military made this country the great one it is today (ex. arms race, nuclear bomb, etc). Also the constitution doesn’t say anything about health care.

“the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,”[3] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States."[/quote]

But through the general welfare clause and the Interstate commerce act there are no limits to the federal governments powers.

Now, one might wonder what took them so long writing the constitution when a simple:

“President is King, biatches!”

would have meant the exact same thing, but those were less enlightened times and thankfully the US supreme court, the final judge when it comes to the US constitution, incidentally since around the US flirt with fascism, has interpreted the constitution like it was really meant to be from the beginning.