Health Care Thread

wormie_sl said:

Fuck off faggot. This has nothing to do with the government. The private sector did this. Take your anti government shit and shove it up your ass.

Click to expand...

So when a private company follows the law it is the company's fault. Got it.

Grim1_sl said:

So when a private company follows the law it is the company's fault. Got it.

Click to expand...

Only legal requirement was to make it available, making it default to assuming they joined was the company's fault.

wormie_sl said:

What part of the law forced the private company to enroll me in a plan i did not agree to? Whats that? You are a fucking retard? That answer is correct!

Dont interrupt when people who are not morons are having a discussion here.

Click to expand...

If you honestly believe the company broke the law then sue them. Make millions and "stick it to the man" bro.

Of course you won't do that.

Vaclav_sl said:

Only legal requirement was to make it available, making it default to assuming they joined was the company's fault.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's why everyone is sueing them for being the big bad company evil doers..... oh wait.

Grim1_sl said:

Yep, that's why everyone is sueing them for being the big bad company evil doers..... oh wait.

Click to expand...

There's no suit with the refunding they're doing. If they didn't there likely would be one.

Of course people who rejected purchasing coverage view it unfavorably. What a ridiculous poll.

People who have never bought insurance find out how fucking annoying it is. Thanks Ric Romero.

Next poll coming: Kosher Jews feel unfavorably about pork, 3:1

And how exactly does that poll prove anything otherwise? I have a feeling that most people who don't have insurance now didn't have insurance last year, and the only difference going forward for them is they'll pay a penalty for their choice. I'd be willing to bet 0% of them responded favorably.

Here is the criteria to be eligible for coverage in the ACA: Lawful resident of the state you're applying in. That's it. How does that not make coverage available to virtually everyone who wants it? Whether medicaid was expanded further in a specific state is the responsibility of that individual state. Saying coverage is unavailable and using states that chose not to participate in the medicaid expansion as your reason why is disingenuous at best.

Disp_sl said:

Here is the criteria to be eligible for coverage in the ACA: Lawful resident of the state you're applying in. That's it. How does that not make coverage available to virtually everyone who wants it? Whether medicaid was expanded further in a specific state is the responsibility of that individual state. Saying coverage is unavailable and using states that chose not to participate in the medicaid expansion as your reason why is disingenuous at best.

Click to expand...

Giving the red states the ability to screw over their own citizens shouldn't have been in the bill. I mean wtf did they think was gonna happen if Texas was left to its own devices? Obummercare does virtually nothing for the uninsured down here. Nationalize this shit once and for all or fuck it and let it all burn. I know its not fair, but this half-assed attempt at health care reform has only given ammunition to the Tea Tards and hamstrung any progressive agenda.

TheBeagle_sl said:

Giving the red states the ability to screw over their own citizens shouldn't have been in the bill. I mean wtf did they think was gonna happen if Texas was left to its own devices? Obummercare does virtually nothing for the uninsured down here. Nationalize this shit once and for all or fuck it and let it all burn. I know its not fair, but this half-assed attempt at health care reform has only given ammunition to the Tea Tards and hamstrung any progressive agenda.

Click to expand...

State Sovereignty laws (10th Amendment, right?) pretty much mandate that it had to be done the way it was done - that they're requested to do it, and the Federal government gives them less support if they don't do it - but the Fed isn't allowed to dictate if or how the state does things besides penalizing them if they ignore the Fed's request for how things should be done.

I'm not aware of any LEGAL method that they could've just said "Here, you're doing Medicaid expansion X way, period" instead of "Do it X way or we cut your Federal funding by $Y".

It may be half-assed but it's half-assed as deemed appropriate by those that founded the nation, unfortunately.

Hoss_sl said:

LOL. You think they care about the 10th amendment with the way they treat the rest of the bill of rights?

Click to expand...

If anything else broke the bill of rights why exactly do the Justices feel they aren't? Also why are you more of a Constitutional expert than them to question their judgment?

Ignoring the 10th like that would be cut and dry even to a layman without room for Judicial opinion unlike every other disputed point.