• 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!

REPEAL ONLY Supporters

Are You Insured?

  • Total voters
    24
Kal'Stang said:
The only thing that I want repealed is the mandate to buy insurance from private companies. That to me is a violation of our Rights. I don't mind paying taxes to cover other peoples medical expenses. But I am firmly against forcing people to buy anything from private companies.
Click to expand...


You can't legally get on public highways without auto insurance.

Deal with it.

:lol:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's called free riding. Should homeowners insurance cover a house that already burned down?
Click to expand...

There's not much we can discuss if you create a metaphor where a woman having been pregnant is equivalent to a burnt down house. You know, a useless waste of burnt out space.

Why do you think a pregnancy should make someone uninsurable? What about a random jerk off session on a Tuesday?
 
Hatuey said:
There's not much we can discuss if you create a metaphor where a woman having been pregnant is equivalent to a burnt down house. You know, a useless waste of burnt out space.

Why do you think a pregnancy should make someone uninsurable? What about a random jerk off session on a Tuesday?
Click to expand...

Do you not see the issue with insurance paying out for things that weren't insured against?
 
cpwill said:
I like how the headline in the link (1 in 7 denied for pre-existing conditions) contradicts the text itself (1 in 7 of the much smaller pool of people who have pre-existing conditions...).
Click to expand...

The question was how many millions were denied, it's pretty clear that it was in the 10s of millions over a number of year any way you slice it. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
The question was how many millions were denied, it's pretty clear that it was in the 10s of millions over a number of year any way you slice it. :shrug:
Click to expand...
:shrug: deliberately dishonest headlines are deliberately dishonest headlines.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Do you not see the issue with insurance paying out for things that weren't insured against?
Click to expand...

Denying somebody insurance because they had a pregnancy is bull****. That you don't get that this is what people stood up against from the beginning is kind of funny. That you had to go the extra mile and create a metaphor where women who had pregnancies are just burnt down houses is really funny.
 
Hatuey said:
There's not much we can discuss if you create a metaphor where a woman having been pregnant is equivalent to a burnt down house. You know, a useless waste of burnt out space.
Click to expand...

No, the material similarity between the two is that it is an event that has already happened.

Why do you think a pregnancy should make someone uninsurable?
Click to expand...

If you are already pregnant, that event is more insurable because it has already happened. So it can't be insured against. You can still get companies to pay for it, but then you aren't really getting insurance, you are forcing all the other premium payers in an insurance company to act as a suckers for your free ride.



Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Hatuey said:
Denying somebody insurance because they had a pregnancy is bull****. That you don't get that this is what people stood up against from the beginning is kind of funny. That you had to go the extra mile and create a metaphor where women who had pregnancies are just burnt down houses is really funny.
Click to expand...

It defeats the whole purpose of insurance.
You can't insure against something, that already happened.

The house is just an example of that.

Insurance is meant to cover things that have not happened yet.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It defeats the whole purpose of insurance.
You can't insure against something, that already happened.

The house is just an example of that.

Insurance is meant to cover things that have not happened yet.
Click to expand...

I think the problem here basically boils down to:


1. I want something that is expensive
2. I don't want to have to pay for it
3. I also don't want to believe that I am forcing others to pay for it for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom