What is your problem

ginwilly said:

individual freedom and constitutional rights

Click to expand...

this is what makes your long winded posts so devoid of actual substance. your buzzwords are hollow and meaningless without context, which you always fail to provide.

it's annoying as hell to endure listening to people just keep shouting freedom and liberty and constitution. remins me of listening to the rawn pawl fanbois keep screaming about "wake up!" and "open your eyes!".

now if you have some whacky interpretation of the first amendment that you gleaned from one of your right wing conspiracy websites and would like to share it with us, go ahead.

but don't just shout shit like a child with tourette's syndrome.

ginwilly said:

and individual policies that force people to pay for coverage they do not want or need.

Click to expand...

i guess you'd prefer the $7,000 pregnancy instead? or maybe we can all just go to the planned parenthoods that republicans like you are working so hard to shutdown because you don't like the miniscule part of what they do with respect to abortion (CONSTITUTION! FREEDOM!) which we could have more of if people have a tougher time getting birth control (FREEDOM! LIBERTY! CONSTITUTION!).

i guess the whole birth control thing boils down to evangelical bible thumping idiots and their friends in delusion like you who think that birth control pills are murder because in a very small number of instances, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the wall (or some shit like that. unlike guinwilly, i am no doctor). nevermind that most of the time, that doesn't happen. but it could. so birth control is murder (CONSTITUTION! FREEDOM!).

rawn pawl, who has a huge following here from people like you and twostroke, said that birth control pills are a problem because people have sex for reasons other than procreation, which is immoral. that's the type of shit you guys support, while trying to say you are not religious fucktards.

i just laugh.

CONSTITUTION. FREEDOM.

Ace Yonder said:

I think that there is a difference for not wanting to pay for birth control and excluding birth control from a all-encompassing healthcare bill. Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions, should their costs go down because they won't use those? Or should the bill not cover them? No, because it is healthcare for EVERYONE, and the fact that it gives you more options does not mean that you are specifically paying for those specific options.

Click to expand...

How so? If I could tailor my plan to my needs and have hospitalization and catastrophic coverage only, should it be cheaper or the same? Does paying for towing on your auto insurance cost more or the same?

If people are trying to deny other people from access to birth control then I'm on your side. That's why I'm on your side against church hospitals.

You will have to show your work to prove that an individual not paying for the coverage on their own policy does this. I don't understand your line of reasoning that tailoring a plan to your personal needs is harmful. Can you not see how this was a kickback to insurance?

UncleBuck said:

Liberal talking point regurgitation that has nothing to do with the topic

Click to expand...

ginwilly said:

Click to expand...

the problem with you is AGENDA and often times you will HATE AMERICA.

but i always prefer to CONSTITUTION some FREEDOM because LIBEERTY.

when you and your buddies get together, you THUGS like to DIVIDE for your AGENDA because you HATE AMERICA.

i will always fight against your type of EXTREMISM and JACKBOOTED THUGS and BLACK HELICOPTERS because i am an AMERICAN who loves FREEDOM and CONSTITUTION and UNITE.

so take your DIVISIVE AGENDA RHETORIC elsewhere because i LOVE AMERICA with WHITE PICKET FENCES and BASEBALL and PIES COOLING ON WINDOWSILLS.

Without insurance...

If you can't afford the pregnancy, you can't afford the child.

ginwilly said:

How so? If I could tailor my plan to my needs and have hospitalization and catastrophic coverage only, should it be cheaper or the same? Does paying for towing on your auto insurance cost more or the same?

If people are trying to deny other people from access to birth control then I'm on your side. That's why I'm on your side against church hospitals.

You will have to show your work to prove that an individual not paying for the coverage on their own policy does this. I don't understand your line of reasoning that tailoring a plan to your personal needs is harmful. Can you not see how this was a kickback to insurance?

Click to expand...

How much exactly do you think you, as an individual, are being asked to pay for the birth control part of your coverage? Regardless of your desire to save a couple bucks a month, the main reason the religious right is up in arms about this whole thing is not about individual coverage, it is the requirement that institutions like catholic hospitals are required to offer co-pay free coverage to their employees, many of whom are not religious. It is not about crazy aunt carol paying a little extra, it is about institutions not wanting to cover the basic healthcare needs of their employees. Maybe this isn't why you are against the bill, but you should know the kind of people who are on the side you've chosen.

Todd Akin on Obamacare: "America has been subjected now to the stage three cancer of socialism"
Todd Akin on Rape Resulting in Pregnancy: " First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

You really share common ground with some awesome people

UncleBuck said:

the problem with you is AGENDA and often times you will HATE AMERICA.

but i always prefer to CONSTITUTION some FREEDOM because LIBEERTY.

when you and your buddies get together, you THUGS like to DIVIDE for your AGENDA because you HATE AMERICA.

i will always fight against your type of EXTREMISM and JACKBOOTED THUGS and BLACK HELICOPTERS because i am an AMERICAN who loves FREEDOM and CONSTITUTION and UNITE.

so take your DIVISIVE AGENDA RHETORIC elsewhere because i LOVE AMERICA with WHITE PICKET FENCES and BASEBALL and PIES COOLING ON WINDOWSILLS.

Click to expand...

Nailed it!! yoo ar reely smrt dude.

(actually this troll effort was pretty good, hats off man)

ginwilly said:

I'm going to say that it adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already heavily bureaucratic system. Each layer adds another level of costs, thus it increases costs.

Most of my other issues with it, I had with the old system pre-ACA so I can't blame the bill for those issues, but I can blame the bill for increasing those issues while promising the opposite. (further entrenches the insurance cartel, further entrenches big pharma)

It encourages hospital conglomerates making the independent hospitals more costly. We will soon have a handful of hospital corporations.

It ignores freedom of religion.

They used the shittiest republican idea ever of the individual mandate. It's like "get out of the way, we got this" then use an idea from the right that was so bad it was soundly rejected by all when first presented.

It mandates a level of coverage that not everyone wants and takes away choices you do want. I never go to the doctor, why can't I just buy hospitalization?

It gets involved too much with the patient/doctor personal relationship.

If you include meaningful use that was a trojan horse in the stimulus for preparation of the ACA, I have more.

Things I like, the pre-existing condition mandate. Keeping a kid on your plan until 26 (although a better plan would be no age limit, let me pool with my family and neighbors)

Click to expand...

it's based on the "pool" effect..when you are part of a large group the cost of your "share" is lower..shares must be equal..therefore all policies would have to have certain coverages whether they are used or not.

Ace Yonder said:

How much exactly do you think you, as an individual, are being asked to pay for the birth control part of your coverage? Regardless of your desire to save a couple bucks a month, the main reason the religious right is up in arms about this whole thing is not about individual coverage, it is the requirement that institutions like catholic hospitals are required to offer co-pay free coverage to their employees, many of whom are not religious. It is not about crazy aunt carol paying a little extra, it is about institutions not wanting to cover the basic healthcare needs of their employees. Maybe this isn't why you are against the bill, but you should know the kind of people who are on the side you've chosen.

Todd Akin on Obamacare: "America has been subjected now to the stage three cancer of socialism"
Todd Akin on Rape Resulting in Pregnancy: " First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

You really share common ground with some awesome people

Click to expand...

Geez canndo, we both share common ground with some crazies and real winners. "he is light-skinned with no negro dialect, but can talk street when he has to"

If people understood the shell game our health care system is, they would understand how this bill only adds more shells. I had the privilege of working in a critical access hospital. This is a status afforded by the gov to rural hospitals. Medicare pays a percentage of the hospitals costs based on the percentage of medicare patients they see. So if they saw 60% medicare, they could set my salary at 100k and only be responsible for 40 of it. We learned true costs of prescriptions because of this status. A typical example is pill X cost the hospital 8 bucks for a 100. They typical prescription however would be 80 bucks for 30 with the patient paying the 20 dollar copay and insurance picks up the other 60.

So, the pharma company already received the 20 co-pay for less than 3 dollars worth of drugs and gets another 60 from insurance? Not likely. Insurance companies are on the other end negotiating with pharma, but their accounting gets to match the payout. Meanwhile the hospital is charging you 1000 for a service that your insurance deems is only reimbursable at 400 dollars. Either the hospital collects the 600 from you, or writes it off as a loss. So essentially the hospital collects 400 (cost of service) and gets to write it up in accounting as a 200 dollar loss.

I'm not Todd Akin, I'm going to assume you are not Nancy "we have to pass it to know what's in it" Pelosi, or "read the bill? who reads the bills" Dingell.

If you understand how this shell game works and can explain how forcing an individual to cover a pill they don't need makes those pills any cheaper, I'm all ears.

If you can help me understand how it's worth forcing unwanted goods on American citizens at the benefit of big pharma, hospital corp and the insurance cartel, I'm listening.

I too think the church hospital shouldn't be given church status, but I also believe a business should be allowed to tailor plans to the needs of the worker. Again, when a hospital corporation is self-insured, it costs them no extra to offer a coverage that will not be used, yet gets to increase the employees premiums because of it, how is this helpful to the individual?

Our lust to stick it to the church has put a veil over our eyes of who we really stuck it to.

schuylaar said:

it's based on the "pool" effect..when you are part of a large group the cost of your "share" is lower..shares must be equal..therefore all policies would have to have certain coverages whether they are used or not.

Click to expand...

Who benefits by this pool? The individual paying a little more for unneeded services? the pharma group that gets to inflate prices because of the subsidies? the insurance companies who now collect premiums for services not used? the hospital corp that is self-insured who now gets to charge employees more because of the "extra" coverage that won't be used and gets to say it's because of the bill?

You have been sold a bill of goods and bought it hook line and sinker because of partisanship and hearing what you wanted to hear.

It's like when we let the too big to fail banks write banking regulations and tell us it's to prevent too big to fail.

I think it's around 10% of the AMA that is actually practicing physicians, the other 90% is made up of executives and academia. The 90% of AMA that does not practice also benefit. The practicing physicians? not so much.

BigNBushy said:

Without insurance...

If you can't afford the pregnancy, you can't afford the child.

Click to expand...

yet something that clearly is preventable with $2 hormone pills is unacceptable as well to your party..and ya know that's all they are, estrogen..just like you boys need your testosterone supplement.

ginwilly said:

Who benefits by this pool? The individual paying a little more for unneeded services? the pharma group that gets to inflate prices because of the subsidies? the insurance companies who now collect premiums for services not used? the hospital corp that is self-insured who now gets to charge employees more because of the "extra" coverage that won't be used and gets to say it's because of the bill?

You have been sold a bill of goods and bought it hook line and sinker because of partisanship and hearing what you wanted to hear.

It's like when we let the too big to fail banks write banking regulations and tell us it's to prevent too big to fail.

I think it's around 10% of the AMA that is actually practicing physicians, the other 90% is made up of executives and academia. The 90% of AMA that does not practice also benefit. The practicing physicians? not so much.

Click to expand...

um, no..this has been around forever and works quite nicely..peo.

schuylaar said:

um, no..this has been around forever and works quite nicely..peo.

Click to expand...

pooling insurance reduces costs, not denying that. Pooling costs that are not used by people is not for the people's benefit though. If each person could tailor a plan, THEN pool together, it would be a better option no? why do you think we were not allowed this option? Is the possibility this little gem was at the behest of the health care trinity, yet sold to us as benefiting the "greater good"?

I'm also trying to point out what a boon this is to the trinity who controls those costs. This encourages consolidation of corporate power and companies to self-insure.

ginwilly said:

pooling insurance reduces costs, not denying that. Pooling costs that are not used by people is not for the people's benefit though. If each person could tailor a plan, THEN pool together, it would be a better option no? why do you think we were not allowed this option? Is the possibility this little gem was at the behest of the health care trinity, yet sold to us as benefiting the "greater good"?

I'm also trying to point out what a boon this is to the trinity who controls those costs. This encourages consolidation of corporate power and companies to self-insure.

Click to expand...

there has to be conformity to plans in order to spread the financial burden..you are given a "complete" plan that brings you from S/0 to M/3 if need be.

schuylaar said:

there has to be conformity to plans in order to spread the financial burden..you are given a "complete" plan that brings you from S/0 to M/3 if need be.

Click to expand...

The majority of citizens in this country do not take birth control so this not about helping the most. Insurance companies were forced to pre-exempting conditions (finally!). A way to get agreement from them is to give them money to make up the difference. It costs you no less for birth control pills whether I have coverage for it or not. It's not the insurance companies that are paying for it, it's you through your deductible.

Politically it was brilliant. "how can we give the insurance companies money, force people to buy stuff they don't need or want so insurance companies can maintain their profits?" "hey, we can use our war on women rhetoric, we get to screw over the public and shout at any opposition that they hate women!, it polls well in our studies" "yes, and instead of us having to defend this policy, they'll have to defend why they hate women, it's brilliant!"

ginwilly said:

The majority of citizens in this country do not take birth control so this not about helping the most. Insurance companies were forced to pre-exempting conditions (finally!). A way to get agreement from them is to give them money to make up the difference. It costs you no less for birth control pills whether I have coverage for it or not. It's not the insurance companies that are paying for it, it's you through your deductible.

Politically it was brilliant. "how can we give the insurance companies money, force people to buy stuff they don't need or want so insurance companies can maintain their profits?" "hey, we can use our war on women rhetoric, we get to screw over the public and shout at any opposition that they hate women!, it polls well in our studies" "yes, and instead of us having to defend this policy, they'll have to defend why they hate women, it's brilliant!"

Click to expand...

If that were all the war on women were about, I would be forced to agree. But it isn't. Remove health clinics, subject women who want to get abortions to invasive ultrsound. Force them to listen to government mandated "exhortations", keep doctors from being able to suggest certain proceedures, virtualy eliminate family planning clinics from cities and even states, ensure that women don't get paid the same for the same work, po po their claims of rape, turn a blind eye to sexual abuse in the work place or the military. If it were just this thing, then you would have a point. It isn't - you don't. And again, I am uncertain but I believe that male erection pills are covered.

Ace Yonder said:

The way I see it, if your religion dictates that you not use condoms, don't use condoms. If the government requires hospitals to provide condoms and you find that violates your religion, don't work at, run, or fund a hospital. Its not like there will be no more hospitals, it is a void that will be filled. The public should not suffer just because religious institutions filled that void a long time ago. If they don't want to change with the times they can pick up shop and leave, there is no federal mandate requiring them to continue operations. My wife was denied birth control pills during a hospital stay because it was a "Catholic" hospital, but she did not make the choice to go to a "Catholic" hospital, the ambulance that she contacted over a service that is payed for by her tax dollars (911) brought her there. If you work with the government, you abide by the separation of church and state, but no, its okay if you impede on other people's freedoms, but never if it impedes on your freedom to oppress. I see nowhere in the ACA that dictates anything that violates the personal rights of religious people. It doesn't say YOU as a private citizen are required to give out condoms, it says that people who deal with the welfare of the public are. Hospitals and healthcare are not the sole domain of the religious.

Click to expand...

What happens when your religion requires that you actively propagate your religion?

cannabineer said:

What happens when your religion requires that you actively propagate your religion?

Click to expand...

You find yourself in a form of spirituality that has become dysfunctional and psychologically pathogenic because it is asking you to try and affect others instead of focusing on leading by example and growing yourself spiritually?.

By the way this also applies to social policy and personal choice (such as ACA) not just religion and spirituality.

futant said:

You find yourself in a form of spirituality that has become dysfunctional and psychologically pathogenic because it is asking you to try and affect others instead of focusing on leading by example and growing yourself spiritually?.

By the way this also applies to social policy and personal choice (such as ACA) not just religion and spirituality.

Click to expand...

There is no personal choice.

canndo said:

There is no personal choice.

Click to expand...

As likewise there is very little spirituality in modern religion as its practice is instructed by others. How one personally chooses to practice (or not practice) may reflect differently.