• 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!

Guy who blames the sick for getting sick...just got diagnosed with cancer

It doesn’t change that Mo Brooks was right. The point of the ACA was to force healthier people to support unhealthy people and most preexisting conditions are behavior related. And Brooks is probably already insured. So someone who bought insurance before getting sick, like the representative did, would not be as effected by a medical episode.

What is wrong with forcing healthier people to support unhealthy people? Isn’t that the purpose of insurance, from private plans to Medicare? How else do insurance companies make profits? My wife had breast cancer, I have an incurable (not fatal) disease called Crohn’s disease. Healthy people support us, as we no doubt support people more sick that we are. Or did we not live lives good enough and therefore don’t deserve insurance? Do you have stats that show that preexisting conditions are behavior oriented?
 
And don't give me the crap about British doctors not cutting off care to patients who they don't think are economically beneficial.

Doctors everywhere do that, including here. It’s called “palliative care”, or “hospice”, or some other things. There are many things modern medicine still can’t fix, and experienced doctors, after years of experience, often get a good feel for when to throw in the towel.

I can pull up a thousand BS links like yours to counter your nonsense.

I’m sure. That’s why there are careful, large scale, population based, highly controlled public health studies-to cut through all the anecdotes, stories, and links, and help definitively answer these questions with scientific and statistical rigor, rather than just posting links and stories to each other.
 
Last edited:
No, that was NOT the "point" of the ACA. The point of the ACA was to get as many Americans as possible to have access to affordable health insurance.

No, the point was for democrats to force other people to pay for a huge bureaucracy that employed tens of thousands of democrat party functionaries. That was the primary goal. The secondary goal was to force other people to pay for democrat party supporter's health care.

The individual mandate - which was first proposed by the strongly-conservative Heritage Foundation - was the means of making it possible for the greatest percentage of Americans having health-care coverage while maintaining a market-based health-care system.

Yes, and that wasn't supposed to include the wholesale takeover of the health care system by the government.

And besides, if the GOP actually gave a rat's ass about its constituents, Republicans in Congress would be fighting tooth-and-nail to preserve Obamacare, since the unhealthiest states in the nation are those that comprise the strongest base of the GOP:

There is no benefit to the people from the government taking over healthcare except for the democrat party functionaries who have burrowed their way into the bureaucracy and who live their lives by sucking the blood of ordinary, normal American taxpayers.
 
It doesn’t change that Mo Brooks was right. The point of the ACA was to force healthier people to support unhealthy people and most preexisting conditions are behavior related. And Brooks is probably already insured. So someone who bought insurance before getting sick, like the representative did, would not be as effected by a medical episode.

Um, you do know that's the point of all health insurance, yes? Actually, it's also the point of car insurance - you pay into it hoping don't need it, but you're paying for people who end up using it. You pay into life insurance hoping you don't die, but you're paying the benefits to the survivors of people who do die. You pay into disability insurance hoping you do become disabled, but you're paying for people who are disabled. I could go on and on.

You guys really need to think before posting.
 
I'm not picking on him at all - read again what I wrote. I was giving a cautionary tale on why it's not good to look down on others. Besides, did I ridicule Mo Brooks in the least? No...but I certainly ridiculed myself and gave myself as the first example.

I realize that you stand against most everything I stand for...but please take a moment to consider whether my posts are as hateful as you seem to think.

Yes, Karma caught up with Mr. Brooks.
 
Um, you do know that's the point of all health insurance, yes? Actually, it's also the point of car insurance - you pay into it hoping don't need it, but you're paying for people who end up using it. You pay into life insurance hoping you don't die, but you're paying the benefits to the survivors of people who do die. You pay into disability insurance hoping you do become disabled, but you're paying for people who are disabled. I could go on and on.

You guys really need to think before posting.

The problem is, the ACA forced people who should be paying into the pool on to Medicaid while capping costs for hose who are too risky to insure
 
No, the point was for democrats to force other people to pay for a huge bureaucracy that employed tens of thousands of democrat party functionaries. That was the primary goal. The secondary goal was to force other people to pay for democrat party supporter's health care.



Yes, and that wasn't supposed to include the wholesale takeover of the health care system by the government.



There is no benefit to the people from the government taking over healthcare except for the democrat party functionaries who have burrowed their way into the bureaucracy and who live their lives by sucking the blood of ordinary, normal American taxpayers.

I know, SS, Medicare, the ACA, min wage, environmental protections, all the liberal stuff was to find jobs for democrats, while military spending and the building of prisons was to find jobs for republicans. Makes sense.
 
It doesn’t change that Mo Brooks was right. The point of the ACA was to force healthier people to support unhealthy people and most preexisting conditions are behavior related. And Brooks is probably already insured. So someone who bought insurance before getting sick, like the representative did, would not be as effected by a medical episode.

The bolded is how insurance markets are supposed to work.


If an insurance market starts catering to only the lowest-cost insureds, then you get market failure.
 
The bolded is how insurance markets are supposed to work.


If an insurance market starts catering to only the lowest-cost insureds, then you get market failure.

You get market failure when the government mandates companies take unprofitable risks
 
A long time ago, I (privately) laughed at the guy I worked for having hair on the tops of his ears - it made him look like an elf, since the hair was all straight up. A few years later I started getting hair on my ears...and they're curvy, sorta like pubes - made me laugh at myself since that would make me a bit of a d**khead, I guess. I'm pretty good about shaving the tops of my ears as a result.

But the point is, that taught me not to look down on others and blame them for their health issues...'cause the same thing could happen to me.

That brings us to Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL), who just got diagnosed with prostate cancer. While I despise his politics, I do pity him and I wouldn't for a moment laugh at him about this - it can happen to any guy, and I've already had one biopsy for that exact thing (and thankfully, it was negative).

The problem is, Representative Brooks had this to say when he included an Obamacare-repeal proposal this past March: “My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool,” Brooks said in comments that generated swift backlash. “That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people — who’ve done things the right way — that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”

Prohibitively-expensive health problems can happen to anyone...and what goes around has a habit of coming back around. I'm not laughing at him for a moment, but am posting this to caution both those who would laugh at him...and those who are quick to blame the sick for their own condition.

We are THE lone advanced post industrial nation on the planet without universal healthcare, but boy you should see our global occupational military!
 
The problem is, the ACA forced people who should be paying into the pool on to Medicaid while capping costs for hose who are too risky to insure

Premiums are lower in Medicaid expansion states. And offering greater financial protection in the event one gets very sick is sort of the point.
 
Back
Top Bottom