Sweet - Pre-existing conditions are not all covered

[turtlespeed 212]

Evidently you can be addicted to anything but tobacco products.

Heroin - No problem - Here is some insurance for you.
Alchohol? Cocaine? Crack? Meth? That's all good.

Tobacco - Well, now, lets see here - umm yeah - you get penalized for that.

Up to and including 400% of your premiums.

Looks just a LITTLE like a war on Big Tobacco, no?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

turtlespeed

Evidently you can be addicted to anything but tobacco products.

Heroin - No problem - Here is some insurance for you.
Alchohol? Cocaine? Crack? Meth? That's all good.

Tobacco - Well, now, lets see here - umm yeah - you get penalized for that.

Up to and including 400% of your premiums.

Looks just a LITTLE like a war on Big Tobacco, no?

I heard a report the other day that followed this theme
This may be the case for most pre-existing conditions
You can get coverage
It WILL be very very expesive

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

I'm assuming you don't smoke, Turtle?

If that's the case, just so I'm clear, you'd be fine with paying higher premiums to cover the guaranteed health problems that comes with those who do, yes?


Or no? You actually think this is the right thing to do but are engaging in your continual infantile and pointless political point scoring.

'Ha! SEE! The thousand page document doesn't exactly line up with the 4 second sound bite used to describe it! I caught them! see? See, mum? see?'...

I'm happy that smokers can get health coverage. I think it should absolutely cost them more. The same with people who have liver problems but continue to drink, or who take drugs, or who are obese and don't try to do anything about it.

[turtlespeed 212]

yoink

I'm assuming you don't smoke, Turtle?

If that's the case, just so I'm clear, you'd be fine with paying higher premiums to cover the guaranteed health problems that comes with those who do, yes?


Or no? You actually think this is the right thing to do but are engaging in your continual infantile and pointless political point scoring.

'Ha! SEE! The thousand page document doesn't exactly line up with the 4 second sound bite used to describe it! I caught them! see? See, mum? see?'...

I'm happy that smokers can get health coverage. I think it should absolutely cost them more. The same with people who have liver problems but continue to drink, or who take drugs, or who are obese and don't try to do anything about it.

I don't believe that cherry picking is something the government should do. The move is absolutely political.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[yoink 321]

I ask again - is it the right thing to do?

[turtlespeed 212]

yoink

I ask again - is it the right thing to do?

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

If you are going to write a law that allows all pre-existing conditions, you should not be able to cherry pick what a pre-existing condition is.

It is just the latest realization and publication and attention drawn to just how useless this redistribution law is.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[yoink 321]

I don't know the wording of the law, so I'm going from what you've said.

"a law that allows all pre-existing conditions"

To me, that's what it's doing. It doesn't say that all preexisting conditions will cost the same, and it shouldn't.


And my initial point was that you have no interest in the application, or about what's right and wrong. You're simply doing a point-scoring exercise regardless of what you believe is right - and therin is the irony. You're being as political and obfuscative as the politicians you're pointing fingers at.

If you were genuinely 'right-wing', 'anti-liberal' or whatever else seems to define you, you'd be saying 'They've not gone far enough! It's a drop in the ocean! See? I told you it was a stupid law!" That you don't like the people, the parties or even the law is colouring what you seem to think about the content...

[turtlespeed 212]

yoink

I don't know the wording of the law, so I'm going from what you've said.

"a law that allows all pre-existing conditions"

To me, that's what it's doing. It doesn't say that all preexisting conditions will cost the same, and it shouldn't.


And my initial point was that you have no interest in the application, or about what's right and wrong. You're simply doing a point-scoring exercise regardless of what you believe is right - and therin is the irony. You're being as political and obfuscative as the politicians you're pointing fingers at.

If you were genuinely 'right-wing', 'anti-liberal' or whatever else seems to define you, you'd be saying 'They've not gone far enough! It's a drop in the ocean! See? I told you it was a stupid law!" That you don't like the people, the parties or even the law is colouring what you seem to think about the content...

The irony here is epic.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[yoink 321]

I'm a secret conservative

[turtlespeed 212]

yoink

I'm a secret conservative

In the famous words of Bugs Bunny, "Could beeeeeee".

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

yoink

I'm happy that smokers can get health coverage. I think it should absolutely cost them more. The same with people who have liver problems but continue to drink, or who take drugs, or who are obese and don't try to do anything about it.

If I read this page correctly, it is saying that any premium assistance help due to lower income is off the table for smokers. If true, seems unjust, and part of the typical vindictiveness against smokers (of tobacco, not pot) that we have seen across the country. They're easy targets now that they are a minority. (though every time those fuckers leave a cigarrette butt on the street in front of my house, I briefly relish this)

The real problem here may be the need for premium subsidies to make this thing work.

[lawrocket 3]

Tobacco, obesity and alcohol. Get rid of those things and healthcare becomes a lot less expensive.

Now that the government is even more involved in paying for the costs of these conditions, one can expect further limitations in diet to be "recommended."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

So, you support government subsidies to pay for the clean up of the pollution companies produce?

To me that's all this is; the unwillingness of the government to spend tax dollars to clean up somebody else's pollution.

I would think you'd be FOR that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydiver30960 0]

lawrocket

Now that the government is even more involved in paying for the costs of these conditions, one can expect further limitations in diet to be "recommended."

...no doubt based on the infuriatingly outdated BMI calculation. I'm in the best shape/ lowest % body fat of my life, but because I have the muscle I have the calculator says I'm overweight and a health risk.

Elvisio "I'm going to have to pay more if I want to stay in shape" Rodriguez

[SkyDekker 1,122]

skydiver30960

***

Now that the government is even more involved in paying for the costs of these conditions, one can expect further limitations in diet to be "recommended."

...no doubt based on the infuriatingly outdated BMI calculation. I'm in the best shape/ lowest % body fat of my life, but because I have the muscle I have the calculator says I'm overweight and a health risk.

Elvisio "I'm going to have to pay more if I want to stay in shape" Rodriguez

BMI was never intended for single person, it is a measurement for entire populations.

[grue 1]

lawrocket

Tobacco, obesity and alcohol. Get rid of those things and healthcare becomes a lot less expensive.

Now that the government is even more involved in paying for the costs of these conditions, one can expect further limitations in diet to be "recommended."

Not just diet, but behaviour.

Here in Australia it's become a hellaciously risk-adverse culture, down to fining adults for not wearing helmets on bicycles. Without any evidence to support my opinion, I blame government health care. WHen the fuckers that make the laws are the fuckers that pay the bills, you can bet they'll do more of the former to try and do less of the latter.

cavete terrae.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

BMI was never intended for single person, it is a measurement for entire populations.

and yet, how is it being used? For (or if you like, Against) individuals. Example - high school athletes getting letters sent home about their 'fat' daughters. And every life insurance policy form has height and weight on it. I haven't seen body fat percentage.

[Arvoitus 1]

skydiver30960

***

Now that the government is even more involved in paying for the costs of these conditions, one can expect further limitations in diet to be "recommended."

...no doubt based on the infuriatingly outdated BMI calculation. I'm in the best shape/ lowest % body fat of my life, but because I have the muscle I have the calculator says I'm overweight and a health risk.

Elvisio "I'm going to have to pay more if I want to stay in shape" Rodriguez

It is only intended to be used by 'normal' people, not by people with significant muscle mass. Any doctor worth anything should know that.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[davjohns 1]

lawrocket

Tobacco, obesity and alcohol. Get rid of those things and healthcare becomes a lot less expensive.

Now that the government is even more involved in paying for the costs of these conditions, one can expect further limitations in diet to be "recommended."

Don't forget sloth. With more people getting the majority of their exercise from pushing buttons, leaps of inference, and political bashing, we need a national (mandatory) exercise program.

Remember, folks. When you give up responsibility, you give up control. If the government has to pay for your healthcare, they get to tell you how to care for your health.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

lawrocket

Tobacco, obesity and alcohol. Get rid of those things and healthcare becomes a lot less expensive.

Now that the government is even more involved in paying for the costs of these conditions, one can expect further limitations in diet to be "recommended."

You mean like how we've limited military spending to just 4X the second place country, 11X the next NATO country, and 30X our northern neighbor with the same land mass and similar labor costs?

( Disregarding homeland security, military pensions, veterans affairs, a lot of our intelligence and nuclear spending, and interest on past expenditures on such things )

While "socialism" and "corporatism" both end in "ism" they are very different.

[kelpdiver 2]

DrewEckhardt

You mean like how we've limited military spending to just 4X the second place country, 11X the next NATO country, and 30X our northern neighbor with the same land mass and similar labor costs?

comparing to Canada is a bit silly. When you eliminate the US border (and our mutual assistance) and the polar edges, there's not all that much coastline to defend. It may be the same land mass by surface area, but not at all the same where it matters.

It's a fairer question to ask - why does Canada spend anything at all on defense?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

kelpdiver

***
You mean like how we've limited military spending to just 4X the second place country, 11X the next NATO country, and 30X our northern neighbor with the same land mass and similar labor costs?

comparing to Canada is a bit silly.
[/QUOTE]

It's very reasonable.

[QUOTE]
When you eliminate the US border (and our mutual assistance) and the polar edges, there's not all that much coastline to defend.
[/QUOTE]

Canada has significantly more coastline than America and the Arctic north is where they're arguing with Russia over who has sovereignty and can exploit the mineral deposits.

[quade 3]

DrewEckhardt

Canada has significantly more coastline than America and...

It certainly does matter how one calculates it.

The CIA World Fact Book says Canada has slightly over 10 times as much coastline. Meanwhile, the World Resources Institute (a US NGO, but using United States Defense Mapping Agency data) puts it just under 2 times.

Neither is 100% correct, but like I said, it all depends on how it's calculated.

Mathematically, coastlines are fractals. As such, they are infinite.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Arvoitus 1]

kelpdiver

***
You mean like how we've limited military spending to just 4X the second place country, 11X the next NATO country, and 30X our northern neighbor with the same land mass and similar labor costs?

comparing to Canada is a bit silly. When you eliminate the US border (and our mutual assistance) and the polar edges, there's not all that much coastline to defend. It may be the same land mass by surface area, but not at all the same where it matters.

It's a fairer question to ask - why does Canada spend anything at all on defense?

Holy shit balls! Do you honestly believe that the massive amounts military spending in US are due to the coastline and due to the fact that Mexico is your neighbor?

In the past 100 years, how many hostile foreign troops have put their boots on continental US soil? And how many times have armed US forced done that in some 3rd world country?

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[kelpdiver 2]

read more carefully, next time. You missed a huge element.