• 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!

Trump Fires Them All

Cisero said:
That was my point, just because you, me, or anybody else does not condone someone's particular life choices, that does not mean these people should be denied health insurance.

Otherwise, you could use the same logic to deny health insurance to smokers, drug users, alcoholics, people who are overweight... most health problems are related to poor choices. If you want to deny coverage of conditions stemming from poor choices, you must deny coverage of ALL conditions that stem from poor choices. Otherwise, you're just picking and choosing based on something very subjective : your personal values.
Click to expand...

No one should get health insurance for free. :2wave:

That is my take. If a homosexual gets AIDS, he should be the one paying the bill, not a tax payer. The ACA was ruled by SCOTUS as a tax. Other wise it is in fact not Constitutional..

If they play, they MUST PAY...
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
No one should get health insurance for free. :2wave:

That is my take. If a homosexual gets AIDS, he should be the one paying the bill, not a tax payer. The ACA was ruled by SCOTUS as a tax. Other wise it is in fact not Constitutional..

If they play, they MUST PAY...
Click to expand...

I never said health insurance should be free. I'm saying that if someone pays into a health insurance, they should receive appropriate coverage.

If the health insurance denies coverage of HIV treatment because "you must pay your poor choices" then it would be logical for the health insurance to deny coverage of ALL conditions stemming from poor choices.
 
Mycroft said:
Trump is just doing what any good CEO would do: Removing dead weight.
Click to expand...

That's possible. It's also possible, and from everything about him it seems probable, he experiences a perverse pleasure from using his powers to wreck the accomplishments of his predecessors.
 
VanceMack said:
What is this....the third thread you posted on this same topic? Do you start a new thread every time someone makes you look stupid by pointing out that every new administration...including Obama...did the exact same thing and that you and others are only expressing your poutrage because it is Trump?
Click to expand...

You're confused as usual. This is the first such thread.
 
Cisero said:
IIf the health insurance denies coverage of HIV treatment because "you must pay your poor choices" then it would be logical for the health insurance to deny coverage of ALL conditions stemming from poor choices.
Click to expand...

My health insurance dropped 80,000 paying customers because of AIDS. :2wave:

No one said a word about it at the time either...

So haw 'fair" to the policy holders was the epidemic of AIDS because of a hand full of policy holders? :roll:

The Insurance company could not legally separate the homosexuals from the insured, so they had no choice but to give all 80,000 private policy holders the boot...

With no life time caps, this could have ruined the insurance company and all of it's policy holders. Is that fair?
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
My health insurance dropped 80,000 paying customers because of AIDS. :2wave:

No one said a word about it at the time either...

So haw 'fair" to the policy holders was the epidemic of AIDS because of a hand full of policy holders? :roll:

The Insurance company could not legally separate the homosexuals from the insured, so they had no choice but to give all 80,000 private policy holders the boot...

With no life time caps, this could have ruined the insurance company and all of it's policy holders. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

That's awful mate, I'm sorry about that. Sounds like you have a pretty ****ty health insurance. Totally unfair indeed.

Doesn't change what I said though. All medical conditions that stem from poor choices must be treated equally.
 
Cisero said:
That's awful mate, I'm sorry about that. Sounds like you have a pretty ****ty health insurance. Totally unfair indeed.

Doesn't change what I said though. All medical conditions that stem from poor choices must be treated equally.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with what your saying... but...

HIV/AIDS was a DEATH sentence back in the day. There were few treatments, and the cost was totally out of hand for those...

This disease killed hundreds of thousands of people here in a relatively short time. The insurance industry was not prepared for that at all..

You can not blame the insurance companies for self preservation in the decisions making.. You probably would have done the same if you owned and insurance company...

Nor can you blame a family paying nearly the average national wage for just their health insurance, can you? Self preservation once again.

So no, I don't agree with the statement that medical conditions that stem from poor choices must be treated equally. Why? because this AIDS epidemic has no equal in the realm of insurable conditions.... HIV/AIDS is very different from all other medical conditions.
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
And good riddance to. :2wave:

As a tax payer and a person saddled with $34,000/ year in health insurance from my provider under the ACA, I am glad I won't have to pay for a person with HIV with my ACA TAX money. Their poor choices no one but them should have to pay for. I lost a health insurance policy back in 1997 while my wife was 7 month pregnant and trust me, you don't forget that. That policy was over 30 years old, and had no life time caps, and it was affordable. It was canceled on 80,000+ policy holders because of the AIDS epidemic back then. Nothing against gay's personally, but I am sick and tired of paying out the nose for a life style choice I consider inappropriate...

So there you have it. Let them pay their own way or suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...

You, uh, realize that as a percentage, straight people contract AIDS more than gays, right? And the druggies get it at an even higher percentage. But, I know.....the GAYZ!!!
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
My health insurance dropped 80,000 paying customers because of AIDS. :2wave:

No one said a word about it at the time either...

So haw 'fair" to the policy holders was the epidemic of AIDS because of a hand full of policy holders? :roll:

The Insurance company could not legally separate the homosexuals from the insured, so they had no choice but to give all 80,000 private policy holders the boot...

With no life time caps, this could have ruined the insurance company and all of it's policy holders. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

Please post a link to this. I have no recollection of an insurance company dropping 80,000 healthy policy holders in 1997 because of AIDS. Which insurance company was this? I can't find anything on the internet.
 
calamity said:
Sad thing is his supporters think this is a good thing.
Click to expand...

But of course Obama was fully justified, and it was a good thing when he did exactly the same thing.

Your TDS and hypocrisy are showing again.
 
JackA said:
That's possible. It's also possible, and from everything about him it seems probable, he experiences a perverse pleasure from using his powers to wreck the accomplishments of his predecessors.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about Trump, but I get pleasure seeing him toss Obama's stuff in the trash.
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
My health insurance dropped 80,000 paying customers because of AIDS. :2wave:

No one said a word about it at the time either...

So haw 'fair" to the policy holders was the epidemic of AIDS because of a hand full of policy holders? :roll:

The Insurance company could not legally separate the homosexuals from the insured, so they had no choice but to give all 80,000 private policy holders the boot...

With no life time caps, this could have ruined the insurance company and all of it's policy holders. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

You would have thought that the insurance company would have been mostly covered by reinsurers.
 
ludin said:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tients-to-drop-coverage-idUSTRE62G2DO20100317

i found 1 that tried to do it in 2002.
they were sued and the guy won his case.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link but that isn't what he posted. He claimed that in 1997 his insurance company dropped 80,000 policy holders who were seemingly healthy and didn't have AIDS because of AIDS. Your link is about a man with AIDS whose company dropped him because of his AIDS.

I'd like to see a link from the poster who has repeatedly made that claim because I have no recollection of it at all.
 
tres borrachos said:
Thanks for the link but that isn't what he posted. He claimed that in 1997 his insurance company dropped 80,000 policy holders who were seemingly healthy and didn't have AIDS because of AIDS. Your link is about a man with AIDS whose company dropped him because of his AIDS.

I'd like to see a link from the poster who has repeatedly made that claim because I have no recollection of it at all.
Click to expand...

as i said that is all i could find. i couldn't find anything else.
i never said i was supporting what he said.

that was all i could find.
 
JackA said:
You're confused as usual. This is the first such thread.
Click to expand...
The first thread YOU started in this same topic in which you look stupid? Possible. Theres another 'Jack' a that posts nearly identically to you. But certainly not the first thread on this topic. And certainly not the first thread that you started where you immediately look stupid because of the content of your thread.
 
Cisero said:
The greatest health problems in the US are, by far, related to obesity / fat.
I don't think we should have to pay for the poor health choices of these fatties. We should cut government funded health programs directed towards fat people, it would save the American People 117 Billion dollars per year.

Who gives a **** if 100'000 to 400'000 people die per year ? They should just suffer the consequences of their poor lifestyle.

...

Sources
Click to expand...
Thats actually a valid point. People that intentionally engage in known high risk behaviors should not be required to be covered by insurance companies and those companies that do provide coverage should eb allowed to charge accordingly.
 
ludin said:
as i said that is all i could find. i couldn't find anything else.
i never said i was supporting what he said.

that was all i could find.
Click to expand...

Okay, well again, thanks, but it wasn't anything to do with what I asked him and he kept posting about.
 
once again you guys are suckers for #fakenews


Obama did the same thing to Obama's appointments, as well as 6 of these members already resigned in butt hurt protest whit the rest very sympathetic to them. That makes it an inefficient hostile group who would be of little help to the administration.


"Changing the makeup of federal advisory committee members is a common occurrence during administration changes. The Obama administration dismissed the George W. Bush administration appointees to PACHA in order to bring in new voices. All PACHA members are eligible to apply to serve on the new council that will be convened in 2018."



So he fired the hostile group but says they can re-apply to serve in the new council



Don't you guys ever get embarrassed or tired of being made the heels of the MSM?
 
eohrnberger said:
But of course Obama was fully justified, and it was a good thing when he did exactly the same thing.

Your TDS and hypocrisy are showing again.
Click to expand...

Obama did not dismantle the government and upend every Department. You either lie or lack fundamental understanding.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats actually a valid point. People that intentionally engage in known high risk behaviors should not be required to be covered by insurance companies and those companies that do provide coverage should eb allowed to charge accordingly.
Click to expand...

So who gets to define high risk behavior?

And what else is high risk behavior? Skiing, scuba diving, travelling out of the country, drinking, eating eggs, driving a snow plow, going outside in subzero temperatures without a hat, not going to the dentist, sitting too close to the television, driving your car, hang gliding, eating raw fish, eating too much red meat......how do you police those risky behaviors if you're an insurance company?
 
calamity said:
Obama did not dismantle the government and upend every Department. You either lie or lack fundamental understanding.
Click to expand...

Neither.

I was speaking specifically of the HIV/AIDS advisory council, which Obama did dismiss (as is his right and Trump's right as well) as posted here or in the other thread of this topic.

The federal government needed, and still needs, a thorough house cleaning. It has gotten far to large, far too expensive, far too wasteful, far too inefficient, and far to unwieldy to manage effectively, if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom