• 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!

Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

And this is just one state....

[/SIZE]

This is a disaster that was predicted, and the cancellations are dwarfing the sign ups....Thanks progressives, you are breaking the system. :doh:doh



The policies that are being cancelled were junk policies to begin with, that would pay no more than a few hundred bucks worth of expenses. Consumer Reports picks apart and completely debunks the claim. Nothing like paying money each month for what can essentially be considered no insurance at all. LOL.
 
Yes, they do kick people off their insurance policy when they get very sick and start costing the insurance company too much. Why wouldn't they?

Why are you having such a hard time understanding that $4,200 in dues over 1,190 years only yields $4,998,000. 1,190 years is too long to wait for a return on investment. Most people don't pay premiums for 1,190 years. How could an insurance continue to exist if they made completely mathematically absurd decisions?

I can't comprehend this kind of thinking.

Businesses should go broke because it's nice. Businesses shouldn't make a profit because it is mean.


Do people really believe this stupidity? Surely not.

vasuderatorrent

Thank you for your argument in FAVOR of healthcare reform. When insurance companies are not in position to provide for health security because its not profitable (given that you do not seem to understand risk pooling), its time for government to step in and shore up the system: a/k/a ACA.
 
Thank you for your argument in FAVOR of healthcare reform. When insurance companies are not in position to provide for health security because its not profitable (given that you do not seem to understand risk pooling), its time for government to step in and shore up the system: a/k/a ACA.

Pay with cash.
 
The policies that are being cancelled were junk policies to begin with, that would pay no more than a few hundred bucks worth of expenses. Consumer Reports picks apart and completely debunks the claim. Nothing like paying money each month for what can essentially be considered no insurance at all. LOL.

I don't really care what you, or demo's, or the President thinks is a "junk policy" or doesn't, it isn't up to you to decide what I buy. This is the "nanny" approach to justifying this, and a rather arrogant characteristic of liberal progressives, to tell others what's best for them...
 
I don't recall Obama stating how it would be paid for, just that it would be paid for and not add to the deficit. And the supreme court ruled it constitutional, including Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee.

The over arching argument in '09 for Obama and demo's was that people would overwhelmingly embrace this and flock to sign up. That it would offer so much good, and save people some $2500. per year average, (also a lie) and when asked what of people that still refuse to sign up, he called the tax a penalty. In fact he had interviews with ABC, and NBC arguing that the 'penalty' was NOT a tax, because he was getting hit with the charge that he was with that raising taxes on the poor, and middle class. In fact, he, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of that that had to 'read the bill, to find our what is in the bill', all vehemently argued, and often demonized anyone that claimed it was a tax, accusing people of lying, making things up, even pulling the now overused race card of course.

But, funny thing happened while in the SCOTUS. They argued that it WAS a tax, to defeat the law suit, and under that narrow definition, the court agreed. What was stunning to me anyway, was that almost moments after the ruling, demo's on the news once again began confusing the American people claim not only that it wasn't a tax, but even being as bold as to say that they never argued it was....:doh

Bottom line, they have been lying about this since its conception, and continue to lie.
 
The policies that are being cancelled were junk policies to begin with, that would pay no more than a few hundred bucks worth of expenses. Consumer Reports picks apart and completely debunks the claim. Nothing like paying money each month for what can essentially be considered no insurance at all. LOL.

While I'm sure there ARE policies out there that are junk ours (I/wife) were quite comprehensive and are being cancelled. BCBS stated our cancellation was based on these polices specifically not having maternity/newborn/pediatric vision/dental...at 61/57 I see no need for us to have those provisions. While our example is anecdotal (as MANY of the reported stories are-from both sides) I believe it quite presumptuous to claim that all policies cancelled are junk...as you infer. ;)
 
While I'm sure there ARE policies out there that are junk ours (I/wife) were quite comprehensive and are being cancelled. BCBS stated our cancellation was based on these polices specifically not having maternity/newborn/pediatric vision/dental...at 61/57 I see no need for us to have those provisions. While our example is anecdotal (as MANY of the reported stories are-from both sides) I believe it quite presumptuous to claim that all policies cancelled are junk...as you infer. ;)


But wait, in this very thread someone else is claiming that just because your policy has those things, you won't pay for them due to your age, and likely hood that you won't use those things...Which I think is utterly ridiculous to claim, but none the less, this whole thing is long taken a turn to the absurd when defending it.
 
But wait, in this very thread someone else is claiming that just because your policy has those things, you won't pay for them due to your age, and likely hood that you won't use those things...Which I think is utterly ridiculous to claim, but none the less, this whole thing is long taken a turn to the absurd when defending it.

Yeah, I saw that but cannot understand it. The premium price is based on the benefits (ALL benefits) included in the policy. If you use them or not you still pay for them...? What am I missing?
 
The over arching argument in '09 for Obama and demo's was that people would overwhelmingly embrace this and flock to sign up. That it would offer so much good, and save people some $2500. per year average, (also a lie) and when asked what of people that still refuse to sign up, he called the tax a penalty. In fact he had interviews with ABC, and NBC arguing that the 'penalty' was NOT a tax, because he was getting hit with the charge that he was with that raising taxes on the poor, and middle class. In fact, he, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of that that had to 'read the bill, to find our what is in the bill', all vehemently argued, and often demonized anyone that claimed it was a tax, accusing people of lying, making things up, even pulling the now overused race card of course.

But, funny thing happened while in the SCOTUS. They argued that it WAS a tax, to defeat the law suit, and under that narrow definition, the court agreed. What was stunning to me anyway, was that almost moments after the ruling, demo's on the news once again began confusing the American people claim not only that it wasn't a tax, but even being as bold as to say that they never argued it was....:doh

Bottom line, they have been lying about this since its conception, and continue to lie.

Maybe its a penalty and a tax. I could care less. What I care about is that the health ins. death panels can't deny coverage to people who had a pre-existing condition and were covered in their employers group plan, they got laid off, had to go get an individual policy and were rejected by the health ins. company because of the pre-existing. That, and the policy recision if you got really sick. That is what was really wrong and had to get fixed.
 
You know, it's also interesting to me how republicans suddenly are grieving for people not having health care.
 
Maybe its a penalty and a tax. I could care less. What I care about is that the health ins. death panels can't deny coverage to people who had a pre-existing condition and were covered in their employers group plan, they got laid off, had to go get an individual policy and were rejected by the health ins. company because of the pre-existing. That, and the policy recision if you got really sick. That is what was really wrong and had to get fixed.

Why do you support government death panels? The government grim reapers that have/will force millions of people to lose their insurance and make it unaffordable for many get your blessing? And the IPAB and Sec of Health and Human Services are lurking just out of sight waiting on the time they can spring into action and deny heath care for any reason they choose to millions and you support them?

Besides, your above statement is nonsense. Pre-existing conditions were dealt with on a state by state basis so people could get coverage and any one that had heath insurance and got laid off had access to health insurance.
 
Yeah, I saw that but cannot understand it. The premium price is based on the benefits (ALL benefits) included in the policy. If you use them or not you still pay for them...? What am I missing?

Yeah, of course you pay for them...The argument that the other poster was trying to make to me is utterly without any merit in fact. I asked my insurance agent, (a friend of the family) about this, and he just started laughing, and said you pay for everything listed in the benefits offered section.

finebead said:
Maybe its a penalty and a tax. I could care less.

Really? Because you came in here at me, saying that Obama and the demo's were able to do this under the "General Welfare" words in the pre amble to the constitution, and when I reminded you of Article 1 Section 8, and asked you to find in there where they were able to force people to buy a private product, you came back and said this:

I don't recall Obama stating how it would be paid for, just that it would be paid for and not add to the deficit.

And you cited the ability of the federal government to lay and collect taxes. Which is in there, and it is how the SCOTUS came to its position on that part of the law. However, Obama, and demo's lied, and continued to lie immediately after the ruling, going back and immediately saying that it wasn't a tax. Now, you come in and say you couldn't care less? Why did you even post to begin with then?

Then you all of the sudden come in and say you couldn't care less? Give me a break.
 
I was just thinking that. For a while there the Repubs really hated "them" people that got free healthcare, now they are defending their right to it.
You know, it's also interesting to me how republicans suddenly are grieving for people not having health care.
 
I was just thinking that. For a while there the Repubs really hated "them" people that got free healthcare, now they are defending their right to it.

Where in the world do you come up with that conclusion? I think there may be a comprehension problem going on here...

Please provide the quotes that bring you to that conclusion, along with an explanation as to your thinking process that brings you to that conclusion.
 
The Republicans dont want Americans to "have" to buy insurance that covers healthcare. So simple I dont think I need to supply quotes.
Where in the world do you come up with that conclusion? I think there may be a comprehension problem going on here...

Please provide the quotes that bring you to that conclusion, along with an explanation as to your thinking process that brings you to that conclusion.
 
The Republicans dont want Americans to "have" to buy insurance that covers healthcare. So simple I dont think I need to supply quotes.

I think that is twisting the premise on its head. So yeah, I think you do need to explain yourself.

Look it's real simple....Just show me in the Constitution where the federal government is allowed to force you under threat of taxation, or penalty, to buy a private product.
 
I think that is twisting the premise on its head. So yeah, I think you do need to explain yourself.

Look it's real simple....Just show me in the Constitution where the federal government is allowed to force you under threat of taxation, or penalty, to buy a private product.

What did the SCOTUS say?
 
They said get ready for the "Required Firearm Purchasing Act", brought to you by Remington Arms. Kellog and OreIda said to be gearing up PACs.

Good luck with that. :coffeepap
 
Good luck with that. :coffeepap

And why not? Everything falls under the general welfare clause, right? I'm sure HHS regulations around preventative care will eventually include gym memberships and healthy food purchases.
 
And why not? Everything falls under the general welfare clause, right? I'm sure HHS regulations around preventative care will eventually include gym memberships and healthy food purchases.

Like I said, good luck. :coffeepap
 
Where in the world do you come up with that conclusion? I think there may be a comprehension problem going on here...

Please provide the quotes that bring you to that conclusion, along with an explanation as to your thinking process that brings you to that conclusion.

The fact that they presented no viable alternative for the 50 million who already didn't have insurance?
 
What did the SCOTUS say?

SCOTUS doesn't, or should I say, isn't supposed to be legislating from the bench....

"One of the most obvious problems with the majority opinion in the Obamacare ruling is that the court determined it could rule on the objection to the law’s individual mandate because the result of a citizen’s non-compliance was a penalty, not a tax. (If it were a tax, the Court could not hear the case until the tax had actually been levied on someone.)

But then, with a perversion of reason and justice that one normally expects from liberals rather than a supposedly conservative attorney and jurist, John Roberts rewrote the legislation to say that the mandate’s penalty could have been constitutional if it been passed as a tax, so the Court will deem it a tax and uphold it.

snip

By giving itself the power to tax, the Supreme Court, with the collaboration of turncoat John Roberts, has created a grave danger for the future of our nation: “We must remember that the power to tax is the power to seize property — the very same property that the government exists to protect… Government expansion isn’t free. The people pay first in taxes and then in liberty.”

Beyond the destructive pretzel logic involved in upholding the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate, the terrible judgment behind the Court’s decision to save Obamacare’s provision on the expansion of Medicare — again by rewriting it. He describes, continuing in remarkably plain English, how the Chief Justice compounded his many errors by saying that the law is severable, namely that it remains in force despite the fact that the Court’s changes will likely cause very different operation of the law from that intended by the law’s already misguided authors and supporters."

The American Spectator : Why John Roberts Was Wrong

SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds here, and you know it.
 
SCOTUS doesn't, or should I say, isn't supposed to be legislating from the bench....

"One of the most obvious problems with the majority opinion in the Obamacare ruling is that the court determined it could rule on the objection to the law’s individual mandate because the result of a citizen’s non-compliance was a penalty, not a tax. (If it were a tax, the Court could not hear the case until the tax had actually been levied on someone.)

But then, with a perversion of reason and justice that one normally expects from liberals rather than a supposedly conservative attorney and jurist, John Roberts rewrote the legislation to say that the mandate’s penalty could have been constitutional if it been passed as a tax, so the Court will deem it a tax and uphold it.

snip

By giving itself the power to tax, the Supreme Court, with the collaboration of turncoat John Roberts, has created a grave danger for the future of our nation: “We must remember that the power to tax is the power to seize property — the very same property that the government exists to protect… Government expansion isn’t free. The people pay first in taxes and then in liberty.”

Beyond the destructive pretzel logic involved in upholding the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate, the terrible judgment behind the Court’s decision to save Obamacare’s provision on the expansion of Medicare — again by rewriting it. He describes, continuing in remarkably plain English, how the Chief Justice compounded his many errors by saying that the law is severable, namely that it remains in force despite the fact that the Court’s changes will likely cause very different operation of the law from that intended by the law’s already misguided authors and supporters."

The American Spectator : Why John Roberts Was Wrong

SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds here, and you know it.

It's not legislating (there's one of those sources again. The American Spectator). They ruled on law. Everyone who loses throws out legislating from the bench instead of simply realizing you made a poor argument and lost. Go back to the drawing board and make a better argument.

BTW, saying things like "and you know it" would likely fall under the category of a cheap tactic. I "know" nothing of the kind. It was ruled on, and no matter who likes it or don't like it, it's the law of the land. And it is hubris to believe that you know more about constitutional law than the SCOTUS. Any idiot can write something on the internet. But in court they ahve to cite law, and argue with a better understanding than we have here. I tried to warn you back when you were so sure of the outcome that you just might have it wrong. The American thinker might have it wrong. The American Spectator might have it wrong. As might Rush, or Beck or any number of non-scholars. It happens.
 
It's not legislating (there's one of those sources again. The American Spectator). They ruled on law. Everyone who loses throws out legislating from the bench instead of simply realizing you made a poor argument and lost. Go back to the drawing board and make a better argument.

BTW, saying things like "and you know it" would likely fall under the category of a cheap tactic. I "know" nothing of the kind. It was ruled on, and no matter who likes it or don't like it, it's the law of the land. And it is hubris to believe that you know more about constitutional law than the SCOTUS. Any idiot can write something on the internet. But in court they ahve to cite law, and argue with a better understanding than we have here. I tried to warn you back when you were so sure of the outcome that you just might have it wrong. The American thinker might have it wrong. The American Spectator might have it wrong. As might Rush, or Beck or any number of non-scholars. It happens.


Yeah? So tell me how you get around Roberts changing the law, to make his ruling work? Oh, and btw, attacking the messenger instead of making a logical, intellectual argument for your case is a fallacy, and immediate loss of your point in debate. But you know that.
 
Back
Top Bottom