• 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!

Would you utilize the public option?

Will you utilize the public healthcare option?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 26.7%
  • No

    Votes: 19 42.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 14 31.1%

  • Total voters
    45
Oh my, isn't this funny; the forums intellects admitting they don't comprehend a simple concept as breach of contract in a desperate effort to avoid substantive debate.

Here let me help you N the Capt’n; it means not meeting the terms of a legal contract.

For those of you who have difficulty with reading comprehension that would mean that if you enter into a "promise" with another party in either a writing, which is definitely the case with an Insurance agreement, or verbally and then break those promises, you are in breach of contract.

Hope that helped ya'll.

So what Void asked as pretty simple without all the efforts to obfuscate the issue with blather; who are you going to go to for remedy if your contract is within a Government run plan? The answer is obvious to anyone who doesn’t willfully try to wallow in denial.

On the contrary, the current system, that of your insurance company not honoring their promise, does allow a remedy within our system of courts.

:rofl

Thank you. You just proved that Voidwar's "breach of contract" and my description of "denial of benefits" are identical.

If you have a problem with either an insurance company or a government plan, you go the exact same route.

Who would have thought that TD would have helped clarify things for Voidwar? :lol:
 
Re: Another easy exposure of your assertion as a lie

You started the avoiding because you refused to answer the original question.

No amount of "I'm rubber and you're glue" on your part can change that fact.

Your sneaky first move of avoidance, terminology substitution, has been detailed and exposed thouroughly.

YOU are the avoider. It's right there on page two.



If you can't answer the original question, without resorting to your underhanded tactic of terminology substitution, just say so.

You began the "avoiding", and the order of posts on page two proves the fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.

TD already demonstrated that the two are identical...which is what I've been saying. So, either you didn't like my answer, or you meant something else. If it's the first...too bad. If it's the second, clarify what you meant with examples.
 
Another person who both doesn't get it. Please show where anyone is discussing a public ONLY option. No one is, so your post is irrelevant.

Wow, another Librul who pretends that we are not discussing a public only option.

Here's some facts for you to chew on; the language contained in the bills currently being debated within congress are purposely intended to lead to the eventuality of a Government only option.

Your desperate assertions that they don't speaks more to your economic ignorance or your desire to pretend, or assist in obfuscating that point, that it doesn't mean a Government only plan.

But when you have the "public" option, which is the ONLY thing a majority of Democrats in Congress will vote for as expressed by Durbin and the likes of Pelosi, "dingy" Harry and Maxine Waters, they are more honest and less subtle than a creep like Obama, and you have these same Libruls writing legislation that pretty much makes running a private insurance company a non-profit, even the most desperate denial cannot hide the simple truth that the goal here is to eliminate "for profit" companies in the healthcare industry.

Now run along and pretend that the FACTS are indeed not facts and that I am just a "hyper partisan" Republican who has no plan of my own; it is very amusing if it were not so preposterous in foisting the biggest lie on the American people since Social Security and Medicare.

My favorite lie; it will not get signed if it adds ONE DIME to the deficit. :rofl This coming from the liar who claimed that we had to sign the “porculus” deficit enhancing plan to save jobs and the economy. Since that despicable lie was signed into law we have seen an additional 2.6 million added to the unemployment rolls with no end in sight and our deficit balloon to $1.6 trillion with negative 3.6% GDP.

Carry on; it is painfully obvious who in this debate DOESN’T get it. :rofl
 
Oh my, isn't this funny; the forums intellects admitting they don't comprehend a simple concept as breach of contract in a desperate effort to avoid substantive debate.

Here let me help you N the Capt’n; it means not meeting the terms of a legal contract.

For those of you who have difficulty with reading comprehension that would mean that if you enter into a "promise" with another party in either a writing, which is definitely the case with an Insurance agreement, or verbally and then break those promises, you are in breach of contract.

Hope that helped ya'll.

So what Void asked as pretty simple without all the efforts to obfuscate the issue with blather; who are you going to go to for remedy if your contract is within a Government run plan? The answer is obvious to anyone who doesn’t willfully try to wallow in denial.

On the contrary, the current system, that of your insurance company not honoring their promise, does allow a remedy within our system of courts.

:rofl
But your argument is a speculation that has no real world data to support it. Medicare does not have legions of employees scrutinizing claims to avoid paying them. Private insurers do have them. When private insurers price people out of the market -as they are doing in the individual market- there is only one place to go: a public plan.
 
Oh my, isn't this funny; the forums intellects admitting they don't comprehend a simple concept as breach of contract in a desperate effort to avoid substantive debate.
Here let me help you N the Capt’n; it means not meeting the terms of a legal contract.
For those of you who have difficulty with reading comprehension that would mean that if you enter into a "promise" with another party in either a writing, which is definitely the case with an Insurance agreement, or verbally and then break those promises, you are in breach of contract.
Hope that helped ya'll.
So what Void asked as pretty simple without all the efforts to obfuscate the issue with blather; who are you going to go to for remedy if your contract is within a Government run plan? The answer is obvious to anyone who doesn’t willfully try to wallow in denial.
On the contrary, the current system, that of your insurance company not honoring their promise, does allow a remedy within our system of courts.
So, how does Voidwar see it as being different from a denial of benefits?
 
Thank you. You just proved that Voidwar's "breach of contract" and my description of "denial of benefits" are identical.

Once again you could not be MORE wrong; but at least you are consistent.

A denial of benefits has NOTHING to do with a breach of contract. One can deny benefits every day depending on the LANGUAGE within the CONTRACT and proper INTERPRETATION.

There, does that help you comprehend what is being debated a little better; or are you going to continue to feign outright ignorance and obfuscate the debate with more of your typical blather?

If you have a problem with either an insurance company or a government plan, you go the exact same route.

This of course is naive and completely wrong; if you have a problem with a private contract, you have the remedy of the courts.

If you have a problem with a Government program, well, you can always whine to the politicians you helped elect, but there will be no remedy within the courts and you will not have a CHOICE.

Who would have thought that TD would have helped clarify things for Voidwar? :lol:

Who would have thought that you would attempt to engage in a debate with any level of intellectual honesty?

The fascinating thing within this healthcare debate is the desperation Obama supporters enter into to avoid the FACTS and TRUTH.

But alas, in my experience those who argue for PUBLIC options run by GOVERNMENT entities that lead to LESS choice and MORE cost seldom have much use with the truth, historic record or the facts.

:rofl
 
Wow, another Librul who pretends that we are not discussing a public only option.

Here's some facts for you to chew on; the language contained in the bills currently being debated within congress are purposely intended to lead to the eventuality of a Government only option.

Your desperate assertions that they don't speaks more to your economic ignorance or your desire to pretend, or assist in obfuscating that point, that it doesn't mean a Government only plan.

But when you have the "public" option, which is the ONLY thing a majority of Democrats in Congress will vote for as expressed by Durbin and the likes of Pelosi, "dingy" Harry and Maxine Waters, they are more honest and less subtle than a creep like Obama, and you have these same Libruls writing legislation that pretty much makes running a private insurance company a non-profit, even the most desperate denial cannot hide the simple truth that the goal here is to eliminate "for profit" companies in the healthcare industry.

Now run along and pretend that the FACTS are indeed not facts and that I am just a "hyper partisan" Republican who has no plan of my own; it is very amusing if it were not so preposterous in foisting the biggest lie on the American people since Social Security and Medicare.

My favorite lie; it will not get signed if it adds ONE DIME to the deficit. :rofl This coming from the liar who claimed that we had to sign the “porculus” deficit enhancing plan to save jobs and the economy. Since that despicable lie was signed into law we have seen an additional 2.6 million added to the unemployment rolls with no end in sight and our deficit balloon to $1.6 trillion with negative 3.6% GDP.

Carry on; it is painfully obvious who in this debate DOESN’T get it. :rofl

Read the title of the thread, TD, and then get back to me. :laughat::neutral:

Your foolish monologues are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the topic...as usual.
 
Gotta say that I am thrilled that so many of you would never sign up for the public option no matter how favorably it compares to a private insurance plan!

I definitely think you should call your provider and reassure them that is the case. They are terrified that people will discover that they actually don't provide any real value in the U.S. health care system. They skim off 20-30% of every health care dollar...but since y'all don't mind. I think that is great. Just let the rest of us make a different choice.
 
Once again you could not be MORE wrong; but at least you are consistent.

A denial of benefits has NOTHING to do with a breach of contract. One can deny benefits every day depending on the LANGUAGE within the CONTRACT and proper INTERPRETATION.

There, does that help you comprehend what is being debated a little better; or are you going to continue to feign outright ignorance and obfuscate the debate with more of your typical blather?

Obviously, you have no understanding of what "denial of benefits" means, but that should not be surprising, since you demonstrate a less than mediocre understanding of the entire health care issue. Let me say it simply, so you might understand...even though I have already described it...but quite typically, you came in here with an agenda having nothing to do with the thread.

You have a benefit in your benefit package. You need to utilize it for medical treatment. Your doctor deems it necessary. Your insurance company refuses to pay for this benefit that is in your package.

Hopefully, this helps you to have a modicum of understanding of what we are discussing.



This of course is naive and completely wrong; if you have a problem with a private contract, you have the remedy of the courts.

If you have a problem with a Government program, well, you can always whine to the politicians you helped elect, but there will be no remedy within the courts and you will not have a CHOICE.

You cannot sue an insurance company for refusing to release benefits. The insurance lobby fought hard to not have this allowed. So you are wrong. As usual.



Who would have thought that you would attempt to engage in a debate with any level of intellectual honesty?

The fascinating thing within this healthcare debate is the desperation Obama supporters enter into to avoid the FACTS and TRUTH.

But alas, in my experience those who argue for PUBLIC options run by GOVERNMENT entities that lead to LESS choice and MORE cost seldom have much use with the truth, historic record or the facts.

:rofl

Blah, blah, blah. Nothing more than irrelevant blather. Do you plan on addressing the issue any time soon, or are you going to continue to soapbox with irrelevancies?
 
But your argument is a speculation that has no real world data to support it. Medicare does not have legions of employees scrutinizing claims to avoid paying them. Private insurers do have them. When private insurers price people out of the market -as they are doing in the individual market- there is only one place to go: a public plan.

Cassandra, I suggest that you google the original debate and cost estimates when Medicare was farcically foisted onto the American public and get back to me.

Do the same with Social Security.

What you will find was a gross UNDER-estimation of the ACTUAL costs and the FACT that these programs grew far out of proportion to the original promises made and stand at the brink of a funding disaster as a result of the gross mismanagement of these programs by the very Government Libruls argue we should now suddenly trust?

It is equally fascinating that Libruls argue that we should TRUST the current administrations farcical arguments about cost savings when it is the same one that has spent us into a $1.6 trillion deficit with no end in sight and not one honest debate as to who is going to pay for all of this largess; the same administration that told us that by passing a pork laden stimulus bill we would create 5 million high paying good jobs.

The ONLY people who can make such arguments are those who are ignorant of the facts, or those willfully wallowing in denial.

The irony here is that the Libruls making these arguments are the same ones who ranted for 8 years how we should not trust government and that it was the government that was attempting to take away our Liberties. Suddenly, with Democrats in charge the government has become more trustworthy than any entity in the land. :doh

FACT: claiming that a public option run health care bill will not add one dime to the deficit and will not result in massive tax increases is a LIE plain and simple.

Now anyone with a modicum of curiosity would ask; why would Government officials and Democrat politicians lie to us about such a program?
 
Right now no. There are certain ideas I like that have come from the debate. For instance coverage for switching jobs and not having to fear if I end up getting sick and then they say I have a preexisting condition. Also if premiums were lower in the interim
 
[
Read the title of the thread, TD, and then get back to me. :laughat::neutral:

Your foolish monologues are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the topic...as usual.

Once again this is nothing more than your typical; "because I say so."

I can't say that I am surprised with your obfuscations, trite condescension’s and laughable notions about what a "breach of contract" is and a denial of benefits.

It is almost as amusing as your desperate assertions that the Democrats are not desperately trying to pass a PUBLIC healthcare bill and cloaking it as a "free market" tool.

But then, denial appears to be your forte'; as usual.

I will once again illustrate; a denial of benefits can be done as long as there is no BREACH of CONTRACT. In other words, they can indeed deny you benefits if those benefits are not permitted by the agreement; the two are self exclusionary contrary to your farcical notions about your knowledge of healthcare insurance and contract laws.

But alas, who can accuse you of intellectual honesty right?

Cary on! :2wave:
 
Right now no. There are certain ideas I like that have come from the debate. For instance coverage for switching jobs and not having to fear if I end up getting sick and then they say I have a preexisting condition. Also if premiums were lower in the interim

One can achieve this goal without a "Government plan." :cool:
 
Gotta say that I am thrilled that so many of you would never sign up for the public option no matter how favorably it compares to a private insurance plan!

That is the laughable part of your illusion; that the public option would compare favorably with a private insurance plan or that the effort of Democrats is to do away with private for profit insurance and health entities in the future once they can pass this 1,000 page attempt to obfuscate the obvious.

I definitely think you should call your provider and reassure them that is the case. They are terrified that people will discover that they actually don't provide any real value in the U.S. health care system. They skim off 20-30% of every health care dollar...but since y'all don't mind. I think that is great. Just let the rest of us make a different choice.

But of course this is nothing more than empty hyperbolic rhetoric with no facts to support it.

Again it begs the question; why do supporters of Government takeovers of our economy lie and distort to make their case? Could it be because there are no facts and the historic record doesn't support their political positions?
 
Once again this is nothing more than your typical; "because I say so."

I can't say that I am surprised with your obfuscations, trite condescension’s and laughable notions about what a "breach of contract" is and a denial of benefits.

It is almost as amusing as your desperate assertions that the Democrats are not desperately trying to pass a PUBLIC healthcare bill and cloaking it as a "free market" tool.

But then, denial appears to be your forte'; as usual.

I will once again illustrate; a denial of benefits can be done as long as there is no BREACH of CONTRACT. In other words, they can indeed deny you benefits if those benefits are not permitted by the agreement; the two are self exclusionary contrary to your farcical notions about your knowledge of healthcare insurance and contract laws.

But alas, who can accuse you of intellectual honesty right?

Cary on! :2wave:

And as usual, you would prefer to argue your agenda rather than what is actually being discussed. Good reason why your posts are never taken seriously. Can denial of benefits NOT be a breach of contract? Sure. If authorization is required and not gotten, first, for example. This is not "denial of benefits" per say, though. But we are not discussing that, and as usual, you try to move the goalposts, hiding the fact that you do not know what you are talking about. We are discussing situations where denial of benefits and breaching the contract are identical. I know it's hard, but try to stay on point.
 
Obviously, you have no understanding of what "denial of benefits" means, but that should not be surprising, since you demonstrate a less than mediocre understanding of the entire health care issue. Let me say it simply, so you might understand...even though I have already described it...

What a trite, yet uninformed attempt at condescension. But such condescension is truly ironic when you so obviously haven't the slightest comprehension of the differences between a BREACH and "Denial of Benefits" in this debate.

...but quite typically, you came in here with an agenda having nothing to do with the thread.

Oh yes, silly me and my agenda of getting the TRUTH and exposing lies, distortions and the secret agenda of Libruls to foist Government Socialism onto our society through the use of scare tactics, fear mongering, hyperbole, demagoguery, lies and distortions.

But I surely would be amused at what you think "my agenda" could be.

You have a benefit in your benefit package. You need to utilize it for medical treatment. Your doctor deems it necessary. Your insurance company refuses to pay for this benefit that is in your package.

Once again, your insurance company can refuse treatment if it is permitted within the AGREEMENT/CONTRACT and not be in BREACH of that agreement.

Give me a great big :doh here dude!

Hopefully, this helps you to have a modicum of understanding of what we are discussing.

The notion that you can lecture anyone on contract law requires the willful suspension of disbelief based on your uninformed efforts.

You cannot sue an insurance company for refusing to release benefits. The insurance lobby fought hard to not have this allowed. So you are wrong. As usual.

But you CAN sue them if they are in BREACH of their agreement. Once again, you appear to find reality and the FACTS elusive.

Blah, blah, blah. Nothing more than irrelevant blather. Do you plan on addressing the issue any time soon, or are you going to continue to soapbox with irrelevancies?

The only one apparently blathering here is you with your funny notions about what constitutes a breach of contract.

By all means, continue making yourself look completely foolish and uninformed. :rofl
 
You're going to opt out of Medicare??!?!!
Dear ****ing god, yes. I've seen how Medicare works first hand while working in the health care industry.

It sound like you trust insurance companies more than the you trust government employees.
I trust pretty much anyone to handle things better than the government does.

Myself, I not sure I want some profit motivated insurance company employee looking at my health care cost as item that may reduce his bonus.
And myself, I KNOW I don't want some government bureaucrat deciding that I'm not allowed to eat this or drink that or participate in that kind of sport because they don't want to foot the bill should I get sick or injured. I also don't want to pay out the ass in taxes to fund something as sad as medicaid/medicare, be denied payment of my services and be too broke to pay for it myself because I'm being taxed to death to pay for "healthcare" that rations its services.

Wait a moment, I spend a micro-second thinking about this and I know I DON'T want some insurance company clown to make that decision.
And I KNOW I DON'T want some government group making decisions about my personal life choices and healthcare. I do NOT want the government to have a vested interest in my health and as such, have reason and ability to limit my personal freedoms and choices.

But you can make your own choices.
At least for now I can.

Good luck finding an insurance policy that has no government subsidy when you're over 65. If you really beat the bushes you might find one $15k to $20K/month.
Who says I would even have it?

Stick to your principles.
I always do.


Gotta say that I am thrilled that so many of you would never sign up for the public option no matter how favorably it compares to a private insurance plan!

I definitely think you should call your provider and reassure them that is the case. They are terrified that people will discover that they actually don't provide any real value in the U.S. health care system. They skim off 20-30% of every health care dollar...but since y'all don't mind. I think that is great. Just let the rest of us make a different choice.
I have no problem with people choosing to mooch off the government as long as I can choose not to, and choose not to pay for it with my taxes.

Public option is absolutely fine with me as long as I can opt out of using it and opt out of paying for it. In that case, I consider the government just another insurance agency - As long as they refrain from banning "unhealthy" foods or activities and/or refrain from mandating certain activities.
 
And as usual, you would prefer to argue your agenda rather than what is actually being discussed. Good reason why your posts are never taken seriously. Can denial of benefits NOT be a breach of contract? Sure. If authorization is required and not gotten, first, for example. This is not "denial of benefits" per say, though. But we are not discussing that, and as usual, you try to move the goalposts, hiding the fact that you do not know what you are talking about. We are discussing situations where denial of benefits and breaching the contract are identical. I know it's hard, but try to stay on point.

Once again, you cannot DENY benefits if they are permitted within the AGREEMENT and if you attempt to DENY benefits that are permitted in the AGREEMENT you are then in BREACH of that agreement and yes, a remedy for that BREACH would indeed be in a court of law.

Man, this is not that hard is it? :doh

Now, going with VOID's argument; if the Government denies treatment, and they will to reduce costs and there is no contract with them, where are you going to go?
 
What a trite, yet uninformed attempt at condescension. But such condescension is truly ironic when you so obviously haven't the slightest comprehension of the differences between a BREACH and "Denial of Benefits" in this debate.

The condescension was quite on target and just a response to your own nastiness. If you do not like it, I make two suggestions: 1) Post civilly and you will get the same in response; 2) Demonstrate some understanding of the topic being discussed and respond in context.



Oh yes, silly me and my agenda of getting the TRUTH and exposing lies, distortions and the secret agenda of Libruls to foist Government Socialism onto our society through the use of scare tactics, fear mongering, hyperbole, demagoguery, lies and distortions.

But I surely would be amused at what you think "my agenda" could be.

Your agenda is wha all extreme rightwing hyperpartisans have. Only speak in misrepresentations, foolish generalizations, inaccurate fear mongering, out of context comments, and outright dishonesty. Unless you have changed, and this thread seems to show that you haven't, your posts go along with your agenda.



Once again, your insurance company can refuse treatment if it is permitted within the AGREEMENT/CONTRACT and not be in BREACH of that agreement.

Give me a great big :doh here dude!

And that's not what we are talking about.

I know it's hard, but try to stay on topic.



The notion that you can lecture anyone on contract law requires the willful suspension of disbelief based on your uninformed efforts.

The notion that you can lecture anyone on the dealings with insurance companies is laughable at best.



But you CAN sue them if they are in BREACH of their agreement. Once again, you appear to find reality and the FACTS elusive.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? If this occurs, there is an appeal process that is in ALL insurance company agreements if you have a dispute. Once this process is exhausted (and there are usually 4-5 levels), then you can go the legal route. Same as with Medicare.

So, as I said, these two scenarios are identical.



The only one apparently blathering here is you with your funny notions about what constitutes a breach of contract.

By all means, continue making yourself look completely foolish and uninformed. :rofl

Get back to us when you have some basic understanding of how insurance companies operate. When you do, perhaps then you can add substance to this discussion.
 
Once again, you cannot DENY benefits if they are permitted within the AGREEMENT and if you attempt to DENY benefits that are permitted in the AGREEMENT you are then in BREACH of that agreement and yes, a remedy for that BREACH would indeed be in a court of law.

Man, this is not that hard is it? :doh

Already discussed this. Please try to follow along.

Now, going with VOID's argument; if the Government denies treatment, and they will to reduce costs and there is no contract with them, where are you going to go?

The exact same process. This is not difficult stuff, TD.
 
Re: Lots and lots of questions, but mine was FIRST

I asked the question. The onus was on CC to answer.

Actually you asked a question to his question.

You just don't like me OC, because I have cleaned your clock before.

Just like you "cleaned" Bodha's, Lexrst's and a whole host of others eh? :rofl

There's some semantics for you.
 
Once again, you cannot DENY benefits if they are permitted within the AGREEMENT and if you attempt to DENY benefits that are permitted in the AGREEMENT you are then in BREACH of that agreement and yes, a remedy for that BREACH would indeed be in a court of law.

Actually you can. Insurance companies will delay payment for the treatment over and over and over until you're dead. That's effectively denial of benefits. It's not technically breach of contract because they delaying treatment until you're dead, at which point the contract is no longer valid.

The end result is still the same.
 
Dear ****ing god, yes. I've seen how Medicare works first hand while working in the health care industry.

So have I. In some cases it's better and in some cases it's worse than private insurance.


I trust pretty much anyone to handle things better than the government does.

I do not.


And myself, I KNOW I don't want some government bureaucrat deciding that I'm not allowed to eat this or drink that or participate in that kind of sport because they don't want to foot the bill should I get sick or injured. I also don't want to pay out the ass in taxes to fund something as sad as medicaid/medicare, be denied payment of my services and be too broke to pay for it myself because I'm being taxed to death to pay for "healthcare" that rations its services.

I do not want ANYONE other than my healthcare provider deciding what I can or cannot do and what treatment I can or cannot have.


And I KNOW I DON'T want some government group making decisions about my personal life choices and healthcare. I do NOT want the government to have a vested interest in my health and as such, have reason and ability to limit my personal freedoms and choices.

I'll say it again, I do not want ANYONE other than my healthcare provider deciding what I can or cannot do and what treatment I can or cannot have. That includes the bureaucrats at private insurance companies.


I have no problem with people choosing to mooch off the government as long as I can choose not to, and choose not to pay for it with my taxes.

Public option is absolutely fine with me as long as I can opt out of using it and opt out of paying for it. In that case, I consider the government just another insurance agency - As long as they refrain from banning "unhealthy" foods or activities and/or refrain from mandating certain activities.

I agree with you here.
 
Back
Top Bottom