• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

Ha, ha, you crack me up. Everybody has some pre-existing condition and ins. companies often use any little illness you might have forgotten to deny coverage for major illness that was not pre-existing. It is racket they use to get rid of sick people and increase profit.

Civil law can address this. If not, I imagine customers would ultimately flee the company and it'd fold. Who's gonna keep paying a company that reneges on its agreement using fine print? That's either a contract not made in good faith (civil law matter), or at least a reason for customers to abandon/boycott the scam and watch the company crash and burn.

The companies have AGREED to eliminate this scam in return for a mandate to reqire all to be insured. It's a fair bargain and one that will save 1000's from bankruptcy.

There it is. These dreaded companies called the shots and won a way to GUARANTEE their revenue stream. What a glorious business to be in... One where the government forces customer retention in spite of terrible business practices.
 
Last edited:
I'll even repeat my final post here:

Made my remarks, showed why I believed those remarks.

Made my comment on that sort of posting. and finished with "have fun. :peace".


Did I say or imply you were a D or R or C or L? Did I try to put you in a political box?
If you take objection to being called a lawyer or politician then I will apologize - unless you really are or were one?

Make whatever excuses you want; you still read a ton into my post which wasn't there, and suggested I said things I didn't.
 
That's because it's already been covered. Declining to ride the merry-go-round one more time is hardly being "non-responsive." You just need a new argument.

The "new argument" is that conservatives put the mandate in the bill in the first place in order to sabotage it. LOL

This thing looks like its going up in flames, and the liberal lemmings are in a group-hug tizzy like we haven't seen since Bush was re-elected. (Not counting my chickens, mind you.)
 
I say what I mean and mean what I say. If you want to go off on a tangent based on something I didn't say, then you'll quite often go down that road solo. This is your problem, not mine.
Yes, I am slowly but surely getting used to your style. ;)
 
Don't forget that pre-existing conditions will also be reinstated without the mandate
So insurance companies can continue paying big bucks to the people who's sole job is denying coverage to sick people. Aren't you glad so much of your premiums go to those important people?

That used to be one of my jobs. Why wasn't I getting these big bucks?
 
Originally Posted by iguanaman
Ha, ha, you crack me up. Everybody has some pre-existing condition and ins. companies often use any little illness you might have forgotten to deny coverage for major illness that was not pre-existing. It is racket they use to get rid of sick people and increase profit.

Seems that someone is getting pre-ex and contestability confused, which considering democrats often conflated and confused the two, really doens't surprise me.

For the insurance company to legally and properly break the contract under the contestability clause, the insured must not be making statements that are untrue and those untrue statements must be material to the issuance of the contract. I.e. the contract would not have been issued had the insured not lied on the application.

Pre-ex just means that the insurance company will not cover a condition that pre-existed te contract for the first year or two of the policy being inforce. After those first 2 years (on average) the insurance policy will even cover pre-ex conditions.

There are special rules when the insurance policy was issued as a group policy by a company the insured works for.

NOw, there have been some insurance companies that incorrectly rescinded a contract of insurance during the contestability period. Those companies have faced fines and lawsuits - as they should.
 
Last edited:
Thought all on this thread might be interested in the last comments for the day.


SCOTUSblog

Will Medicaid Be Scarificed - Analysis

[...]
My emphasis:
Congress’s capacity to react in a sensible way also came into some question, particularly from Justice Scalia and, in a way, from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, both of whom seemed to harbor doubts that the lawmakers would be up to the task of working out a new health care law if this one failed, either totally or partially. Scalia noted the problems in the filibuster-prone Senate. Kennedy wondered whether expecting Congress to perform was a reference to “the real Congress or the hypothetical Congress.”
At least they haven't lost their sense of humor! :lamo
 
Last edited:
Civil law can address this. If not, I imagine customers would ultimately flee the company and it'd fold. Who's gonna keep paying a company that reneges on its agreement using fine print? That's either a contract not made in good faith (civil law matter), or at least a reason for customers to abandon/boycott the scam and watch the company crash and burn.



There it is. These dreaded companies called the shots and won a way to GUARANTEE their revenue stream. What a glorious business to be in... One where the government forces customer retention in spite of terrible business practices.

Huh? So you think not allowing ins. Co. to drop people when they get sick is bad business? So according to you they only need to insure healthy people and now you are talking like the insurers.
You can't "flee" insurance companies when you get sick and that's when you find out that they won't pay. That's how they get away with it. You pay until you need coverage and find out you are denied.
 
Civil law can address this. If not, I imagine customers would ultimately flee the company and it'd fold. Who's gonna keep paying a company that reneges on its agreement using fine print? That's either a contract not made in good faith (civil law matter), or at least a reason for customers to abandon/boycott the scam and watch the company crash and burn.



There it is. These dreaded companies called the shots and won a way to GUARANTEE their revenue stream. What a glorious business to be in... One where the government forces customer retention in spite of terrible business practices.
The entire industry does this so there are no other options except NONE. Not many people are going to take that option.

As far as suing them goes, it's often easier to fight City Hall than fight a corporation. Corporations generally have more money to spend - and certainly the entire industry does. They can't let even one precedent get past the system or they're toast.
 
Make whatever excuses you want; you still read a ton into my post which wasn't there, and suggested I said things I didn't.
And you slapped me for doing so. :shrug:
 
Seems that someone is getting pre-ex and contestability confused, which considering democrats often conflated and confused the two, really doens't surprise me.

For the insurance company to legally and properly break the contract under the contestability clause, the insured must not be making statements that are untrue and those untrue statements must be material to the issuance of the contract. I.e. the contract would not have been issued had the insured not lied on the application.

Pre-ex just means that the insurance company will not cover a condition that pre-existed te contract for the first year or two of the policy being inforce. After those first 2 years (on average) the insurance policy will even cover pre-ex conditions.

There are special rules when the insurance policy was issued as a group policy by a company the insured works for.

NOw, there have been some insurance companies that incorrectly rescinded a contract of insurance during the contestability period. Those companies have faced fines and lawsuits - as they should.

Actually it is standerd practice to attempt to deny coverage for any illness and they have banks of employees who only job is just that. You trust the courts and lawyers way too much, an individual going against the deep pockets of the insurers and their lawyers stand little chance of prevailing. Are all you righties so naive?
 
Last edited:
The entire industry does this so there are no other options except NONE. Not many people are going to take that option.

So you're saying people would rather be scammed than save for their own medical care?
 
Actually it is standerd practice to attempt to deny coverage for any illness and they have banks of employees who only job is just that. You trust the courts and lawyers way too much, an individual going against the deep pockets of the insurers and their lawyers stand little chance of prevailing. Are all you righties so naive?

buck laid out some information that straightforwardly clarifies your sweeping misconceptions and exaggerations. You calling him naive after that post is childish.
 
Actually it is standerd practice to attempt to deny coverage for any illness and they have banks of employees who only job is just that. You trust the courts and lawyers way too much, an individual going against the deep pockets of the insurers and their lawyers stand little chance of prevailing. Are all you righties so naive?

I work for an insurance company and one of my first jobs with them was as a claim examiner and I am an associate of life and health claims , so have had multiple tests I had to take.

Insurance companies do not have banks of employees whose job it is to deny coverage. When a prospective insured lies on the application to make themsevles appear more healthy then they really are and those lies, if known, would have caused the insurance company to not offer insurance, the contract is viewed as never having been issued. This is plain contract law and is not unique to insurance companies.

The state's departments of insurance (DOI) will help a harmed insured and the courts are an option. And yes, the courts have found against insurance companies when they were in the wrong and the DOI is a strong proponent for insureds.

I will absolutely acknowledge that some insurance companies have acted wrongly and those companies, once caught, face huge penalties that cost them huge sums of money in both fines and restrictions they have to face. Trust me, insurance companies bend over backwards to ensure they are in compliance with the DOI and they are audited quite often to ensure they are following applicable rules and laws.
 
Last edited:
I can honestly say that the few dealings I've had with insurance companies - auto accidents, hail damage, healthcare - have been relatively painless. I understand the amount of fraudulent claims they have to filter (people are always trying to find free money), so yes, it can be a painful process.

But if government gets in the game full bore, insurance companies are toast. Government doesn't have to show a profit, a legitimate insurance company does. Government can waste all the money it wants; it's not their money anyway, so why do they care?
 
So you're saying people would rather be scammed than save for their own medical care?
Hard to have saved enough money at 18, 20, or even 30 to cover the cost of some diseases/conditions and accidents are impossible to predict. It's no different for auto insurance. In my state you have the option to carry a $50k bond instead of liability insurance. Very, very few people use that option. Some companies/corporations are self-insured but few individuals.
 
Last edited:
485225_329754067079724_102702636451536_889229_1382925393_n.jpg


LOL.
 
Hard to have saved enough money at 18, 20, or even 30 to cover the cost of some diseases/conditions and accidents are impossible to predict. It's no different for auto insurance. In my state you have the option to carry a $50k bond instead of liability insurance. Very, very few people use that option. Some companies/corporations are self-insured but few individuals.

The first year of a heart transplant on average costs 787k. A Left Ventricle Assist device costs on average 300k. These are the kinds of bills I look at.
 
The first year of a heart transplant on average costs 787k. A Left Ventricle Assist device costs on average 300k. These are the kinds of bills I look at.
Exactly! Most people don't have $300k in their retirement account - let alone that much above it for medical. And forget the transplant, that ain't gonna' happen.
 
The first year of a heart transplant on average costs 787k. A Left Ventricle Assist device costs on average 300k. These are the kinds of bills I look at.

How much of that is tied to the malpractice insurance all the doctors involved have to pay?

Perhaps we need a government malpractice insurance bill.
 
The first year of a heart transplant on average costs 787k. A Left Ventricle Assist device costs on average 300k. These are the kinds of bills I look at.

Had a family member have the heart valve replacement operation. Hefty cost for sure, but . . . . . they had insurance. He was sure glad he had insurance and got that when he was young. Paid for years and when he needed it, it was there. The family learned a good lesson from this happening to him.
 
So it was an odd day in court today. Scalia stated that having to read the entire healthcare bill personally would be a violation of the 8th amendment(cruel and unusual punishment). Conservative justices pondered what parts of the bill to retain if the mandate was struck down, while liberal justices argued that the court should only rule on constitutionality.

Based on the questions from the justices, it will be 5-4 in favor of overturning the mandate, but I would not recommend betting everything you own on that. Intrade has it at a 60 % chance of overturning the mandate.
 
After all of this blathering on, one thing is looking clearer by the minute.

Ding, dong, this witch is dead. The mandate is being stricken, and the Court doesn't seem interested in parsing through 2,700 pages to salvage any part of it, other than Ginsburg.

Start over.
 
So it was an odd day in court today. Scalia stated that having to read the entire healthcare bill personally would be a violation of the 8th amendment(cruel and unusual punishment). Conservative justices pondered what parts of the bill to retain if the mandate was struck down, while liberal justices argued that the court should only rule on constitutionality.

Based on the questions from the justices, it will be 5-4 in favor of overturning the mandate, but I would not recommend betting everything you own on that. Intrade has it at a 60 % chance of overturning the mandate.

...Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down....

I'm thinking it looks like the whole thing may get tossed, if even Kennedy doesn't think he can split it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom