First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Republicans exempt their own insurance from their latest health care proposal
21885 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

The entire objection to this is that the job (or one of the jobs) of the federal government is to set the bar for how citizens are to be treated.


And I don't see why "let them choose at the state level" is an unacceptable bar. If you want this provision, go live in a state that keeps it. If you don't, go live in a state that doesn't. If you think that's unfair, certainly it would be even MORE unfair to make you move to another country, right?



yes its sooooo easy for the poor to move.....with what money?
15750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

The entire objection to this is that the job (or one of the jobs) of the federal government is to set the bar for how citizens are to be treated.


And I don't see why "let them choose at the state level" is an unacceptable bar. If you want this provision, go live in a state that keeps it. If you don't, go live in a state that doesn't. If you think that's unfair, certainly it would be even MORE unfair to make you move to another country, right?



Again, by this logic, what is the point of the Constitution? Should the states not be given freedom to decide what they want to do and what they don't want to do?
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

sundin13 wrote:

Again, by this logic, what is the point of the Constitution?


To limit the powers of the Federal government, as clearly stated in the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is why the Medicaid expansion originally provided by the ACA was stricken down by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that the Federal government could not dictate that expansion and must allow the states to decide on it individually.


redokami wrote:

yes its sooooo easy for the poor to move.....with what money?


Again, clearly EASIER for them to move to another STATE than to another COUNTRY.

I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
21885 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Again, by this logic, what is the point of the Constitution?


To limit the powers of the Federal government, as clearly stated in the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is why the Medicaid expansion originally provided by the ACA was stricken down by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that the Federal government could not dictate that expansion and must allow the states to decide on it individually.


redokami wrote:

yes its sooooo easy for the poor to move.....with what money?


Again, clearly EASIER for them to move to another STATE than to another COUNTRY.

I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.


becausepoor people like me, simply CANT do EITHER how is that so hard to understand?
574 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
All of time / God
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:

I find it interesting how this is being presented.

Fundamentally, this allows a state which does not want a particular provision of the ACA to say "we will not have that provision in this state."

That seems like... freedom.

Meanwhile, Congress said "well, we want it."

Which, again... freedom.

If this provision is such a good thing, of course, then all fifty states will say "we want it, too."

But if some states disagree, they can say "not us!" because... freedom.

The entire objection to this seems to be "you can't give the states freedom, they might make the wrong choice."


Your last thing is correct, but its not just "picking A when the answer was C". its a choice

states rights are important, but some things shouldn't be left to the states to decide. Like i like it how they let let states decide on marijuana usage, whether its Rec, Medical, or flat out illegal. i can live without pot as can most people. but what if a state decided to make murder legal? thats "Freedom", so lets do it!! letting states decide to take away something like taking insurance away from people with Pre-medical conditions, could cost people their lives..

a sacrifice for "freedom" right?

thats why even with the freedom caucus getting on board with the new AHCA, theres just not enough votes for this. the republicans know that their state will screw their own people, and they'll never be reelected again. these guys have common sense. its brainwashed fools who are blinded with their hate for Obama thats on board with this new plan.

im not saying Obamacare is perfect, but it was supposed to be the groundwork for a better plan in the future. why are we trashing it and going back to when no one was happy?
574 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
All of time / God
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:


Again, clearly EASIER for them to move to another STATE than to another COUNTRY.

I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.


this is such stupid logic. the people getting screwed are people who will obviously not have the money to 'just move' to a different state.

whats the point of even building a wall? we're just gonna die anyway with the disregard of our environment and making healthcare costs so high. we rather die from being sick than being killed by an immigrant? because in the end of the day we're still dead. we dont need protection
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

redokami wrote:

becausepoor people like me, simply CANT do EITHER how is that so hard to understand?


So aren't you just as fucked no matter where the law is made? Federal, state, you can't do shit either way.
30942 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17
America


Healthcare



Choose one
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

b17bomber wrote:

the people getting screwed are people who will obviously not have the money to 'just move' to a different state.


Well, you sort of have to connect the dots on this.

If you live in a state which has expanded Medicaid, it doesn't matter if the insurance companies charge higher premiums for your pre-existing condition, because you get subsidised above a certain percentage of your income. The premium you pay never goes over that percentage, so nothing happens to you.

Now, if you don't live in such a state, you are probably already in a scenario where it is cheaper if you just pay the penalty for not having health insurance. And if that's what you're doing, nothing changes when they can charge more for pre-existing conditions. While premiums may go up, the penalty for no insurance does not, so nothing happens to you.

If that's not your scenario, then either your health insurance is provided by your employer at no cost to you, which presumably would not change if your premiums went up... or you can afford to buy health insurance without subsidies.

And if you can afford that, why not move somewhere that will give you subsidies? I mean, if you're that poor, the amount you'd save on your insurance would probably pay for the move in just a couple months.

If it wouldn't, you're just plain not that poor. I took a plane from North Carolina to Oregon for $800. A bus would have cost less than half that, if I'd had a week and a half to sit on the damn thing.

But you know what poor people have more of than anyone else?

Excuses.
mxdan 
11775 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:


b17bomber wrote:

the people getting screwed are people who will obviously not have the money to 'just move' to a different state.


Well, you sort of have to connect the dots on this.

If you live in a state which has expanded Medicaid, it doesn't matter if the insurance companies charge higher premiums for your pre-existing condition, because you get subsidised above a certain percentage of your income. The premium you pay never goes over that percentage, so nothing happens to you.

Now, if you don't live in such a state, you are probably already in a scenario where it is cheaper if you just pay the penalty for not having health insurance. And if that's what you're doing, nothing changes when they can charge more for pre-existing conditions. While premiums may go up, the penalty for no insurance does not, so nothing happens to you.

If that's not your scenario, then either your health insurance is provided by your employer at no cost to you, which presumably would not change if your premiums went up... or you can afford to buy health insurance without subsidies.

And if you can afford that, why not move somewhere that will give you subsidies? I mean, if you're that poor, the amount you'd save on your insurance would probably pay for the move in just a couple months.

If it wouldn't, you're just plain not that poor. I took a plane from North Carolina to Oregon for $800. A bus would have cost less than half that, if I'd had a week and a half to sit on the damn thing.

But you know what poor people have more of than anyone else?

Excuses.


You're essentially saying that everyone should be able to manage based on your experience. A center of everything bias in essence. This isn't true from a multitude of angles though. People have differing neurological pretenses, different factors in upbringing, different areas they were raised in, and different responsibilities they have to assume. I get it, it's easy to convince yourself that your experience holds more merit. Because it's all you know. But thinking that everyone can be held to that standard is truly foolish.
23042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 4/26/17
You mean politicians and they were exempt from Obama are too. If we required politicians to have the same healthcare as its people we would have the best healthcare system in the world.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17

mxdan wrote:

You're essentially saying that everyone should be able to manage based on your experience.


I'm saying that those who can't manage after this change already can't manage anyway.
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/27/17
Why is there so much talk about politics in anime : 3
18866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 4/27/17

cdarklock wrote:


b17bomber wrote:

the people getting screwed are people who will obviously not have the money to 'just move' to a different state.


Well, you sort of have to connect the dots on this.

If you live in a state which has expanded Medicaid, it doesn't matter if the insurance companies charge higher premiums for your pre-existing condition, because you get subsidised above a certain percentage of your income. The premium you pay never goes over that percentage, so nothing happens to you.

Now, if you don't live in such a state, you are probably already in a scenario where it is cheaper if you just pay the penalty for not having health insurance. And if that's what you're doing, nothing changes when they can charge more for pre-existing conditions. While premiums may go up, the penalty for no insurance does not, so nothing happens to you.

If that's not your scenario, then either your health insurance is provided by your employer at no cost to you, which presumably would not change if your premiums went up... or you can afford to buy health insurance without subsidies.

And if you can afford that, why not move somewhere that will give you subsidies? I mean, if you're that poor, the amount you'd save on your insurance would probably pay for the move in just a couple months.

If it wouldn't, you're just plain not that poor. I took a plane from North Carolina to Oregon for $800. A bus would have cost less than half that, if I'd had a week and a half to sit on the damn thing.

But you know what poor people have more of than anyone else?

Excuses.


dude, there is alot more to moving than that. your forgetting the money needed to move, first months rent, last months rent, deposits. cost of moving your stuff. and lets not forget car, unless you live in a city big enough to have an actual functioning public transportation system. and insurance. and food.

so while yes, you can sell everything and be homeless for 6 months to save enough money to move, its not the best idea. and cops. becuase its illegal to nap at a park if you homeless. if you have a home its totally okay.
do you budget off of 750 a month and tell me how it goes.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/27/17
This isn't surprising. Republicans and Democrats regularly vote pay raises for themselves and have THE BEST MEDICAL BENEFITS of anyone in the world. So, yeah. The politicians are gonna vote this for themselves...
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.