Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Life insurance should be a right. Just like health care. Too many people simply can't afford life insurance, and then they die and their families have to file bankruptcy. We should give every American life insurance, and make the insurance companies pay all the claims. Cuz it's the right thing to do. And because life insurance companies are evil too. Don't forget that.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Exactly my point. Anyone who understands health insurance has to know that this is the outcome unless the fines are steepened or subsidies are provided to the insurance companies. The politicians know this too. Obama's said as such, that he thinks single payer will happen within 10 years. This is just the initial push over the cliff. . What bothers me is that we have 59 senators and 219 members of the House that would find single payer rationed healthcare acceptable. So, if 1/3 of them are too dumb to understand this and 1/3 ideologically believe in it then 1/3 of them are doing it for some other reason (greed, entrenchment, power, etc.) Now, my numbers could be way off and I'm sure they are, but it is a given that a majority of our congressmen are either dumb, far left or have some nefarious reason for voting for this.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Life insurance should be a right. Just like health care. Too many people simply can't afford life insurance, and then they die and their families have to file bankruptcy. We should give every American life insurance, and make the insurance companies pay all the claims. Cuz it's the right thing to do. So far we have: Health Dental Eyesight Psychiatric Life Prius Insurance as a right. While we are fundamentally changing the United States to the Utopia States we should make sure we include everything on our wish list. I have two questions for you guys and would appreciate your opinions. Who would be the beneficiary if the government provided me with erection insurance? My wife or me? Is Joe Biden what you would call assassination insurance for Obama?
Philly McButterpants Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Except for (4), those are not federal laws, they are state laws (and in Virginia, you don't need car insurance). And therein lies the point. Some document or other say's that the Federal Government is supposed to do this and that, and all other powers are reserved for the states. And, so the argument goes, healthcare is not part of the federal governments purview. Regulation must be left to the States. [This, btw, has long been an argument of the right (prior to Bush) as to why the federal government should not be in the education business.] Proponents of a government role argue that the Commerce clause, which gives the Federal government the authority to regulate commerce between States, is enough. And that is true, if we are finally going to allow health insurers to sell across state lines. But the other side argues that forcing somebody to buy something is not interstate commerce, and that the mandate should be struck down. IMO government-run healthcare will prevail, but I do not think the argument about its unconstitutionality is groundless. Just unrealistic. Ding, ding, ding .. . winner, winner, chicken dinner. Those powers not specifically designated to the Federal government are relegated to the individual states. It's right there in the Constitution, hence the argument against constitutionality.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 25, 2010 Author Posted March 25, 2010 Ask the stay at home mom whose bread winner husband died how much of a burden his death was on her and her children. You're clueless aren't you. Far from it Chef Jim. I wanted to see your answer. But to answer your question about life insurance. To have or not have life insurance affects only the family involved with the death. Health Insurance affects millions and millions of people. When a person needs health care and doesn't have it and goes to the emergency room, it affects everyone else's premiums. Also many people are exluded by no fault of their own or the insurance companies get greedy. Most other if not all nato countries have broad health insurance polcies, we should as well. We are supposedly the greatest country on earth? Lets start acting like it. Why should the federal government get involved? Because it's job is to step in when an issue affects the country as a whole such as slavery, civil rights, self defense, a nation of un-insured people suffering from greedy insurance companies, etc. And please stay classy and refrain from name calling.
Magox Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Because it's job is to step in when an issue affects the country as a whole such as slavery, civil rights, self defense, a nation of un-insured people suffering from greedy insurance companies, etc. Why stop there? When Oil eventually go up over $150 a barrel, it will be the Oil companies fault right? Or when Banks don't lend, it will be the governments responsibility that they do. Or.....
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Or when Banks don't lend, it will be the governments responsibility that they do. Isn't Congress working on that set of regulations right now?
Magox Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Isn't Congress working on that set of regulations right now? To tell you the truth, I really have no !@#$ing clue what that bill is going to end up looking like. However, I can make a prediction, and that is that Banks will still be too large to fail, and that Uncle Sam will still still have an extra room to give when sonny boy needs it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 greedy insurance companies How DARE they earn a 4% profit?!?! That's just---Un-American! Thank the Good Lord we have Nancy Pelosi and all of her patriotism to save us from the new Octopus!
Magox Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 How DARE they earn a 4% profit?!?! That's just---Un-American! Thank the Good Lord we have Nancy Pelosi and all of her patriotism to save us from the new Octopus! I wonder why the Pharmaceutical companies with their 17.9% Profit margins didn't get demonized as the Big EVIL MEANIES? I wonder why?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I wonder why the Pharmaceutical companies with their 17.9% Profit margins didn't get demonized as the Big EVIL MEANIES? I wonder why? Could be the MAZILLIONS of dollars they donate to both the Dimocrats and Repuglicans.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Could be the MAZILLIONS of dollars they donate to both the Dimocrats and Repuglicans. Or the bribes they took from the government to not campaign against the healthcare bill.
PastaJoe Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 What bothers me is that we have 59 senators and 219 members of the House that would find single payer rationed healthcare acceptable. So, if 1/3 of them are too dumb to understand this and 1/3 ideologically believe in it then 1/3 of them are doing it for some other reason (greed, entrenchment, power, etc.) Now, my numbers could be way off and I'm sure they are, but it is a given that a majority of our congressmen are either dumb, far left or have some nefarious reason for voting for this. What bothers me is that we have 41 senators and 216 members of the House that would find single payer rationed healthcare unacceptable. So, if 1/3 of them are too dumb to understand this and 1/3 ideologically don't believe in it then 1/3 of them are doing it for some other reason (greed, entrenchment, power, etc.) Now, my numbers could be way off and I'm sure they are, but it is a given that a minority of our congressmen are either dumb, far right, or have some nefarious reason for voting against this.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 What bothers me is that we have 41 senators and 216 members of the House that would find single payer rationed healthcare unacceptable. So, if 1/3 of them are too dumb to understand this and 1/3 ideologically don't believe in it then 1/3 of them are doing it for some other reason (greed, entrenchment, power, etc.) Now, my numbers could be way off and I'm sure they are, but it is a given that a minority of our congressmen are either dumb, far right, or have some nefarious reason for voting against this. Gotta hand it to you Pasta, you just made me stagger out the door, shaking my head like the AFLAC duck after overhearing Yoggi Berra. So, you actually want single payer healthcare that is rationed? You want to wait weeks or months to see a doctor that might help you with your obvious slide into full blown dementia?
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Far from it Chef Jim. I wanted to see your answer. But to answer your question about life insurance. To have or not have life insurance affects only the family involved with the death. Health Insurance affects millions and millions of people. When a person needs health care and doesn't have it and goes to the emergency room, it affects everyone else's premiums. Also many people are exluded by no fault of their own or the insurance companies get greedy. Most other if not all nato countries have broad health insurance polcies, we should as well. We are supposedly the greatest country on earth? Lets start acting like it. Why should the federal government get involved? Because it's job is to step in when an issue affects the country as a whole such as slavery, civil rights, self defense, a nation of un-insured people suffering from greedy insurance companies, etc. And please stay classy and refrain from name calling. Who is going to support the woman and her children in my example if there was no coverage? You're still clueless. And in case you didn't know if you have a million dollar policy and the right policy if you have cancer with no health insurance you could access anywhere from 50-90% of that million dollars for anything you wish (want to take a trip around the world? Do it). Let's see health insurance do that.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Who is going to support the woman and her children in my example if there was no coverage? You're still clueless. And in case you didn't know if you have a million dollar policy and the right policy if you have cancer with no health insurance you could access anywhere from 50-90% of that million dollars for anything you wish (want to take a trip around the world? Do it). Let's see health insurance do that. Chef: A million dollar policy that can be accessed for its cash value would be very expensive. Term on the other hand can be cheap but only benefits the beneficiary.
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Chef: A million dollar policy that can be accessed for its cash value would be very expensive. Term on the other hand can be cheap but only benefits the beneficiary. Who's talking about accessing the cash value? I'm talking about accessing the death benefit in the case of a major illness. And BTW term policies do that too, but they won't necessarily be there for you when you need it. And expensive is relative.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 25, 2010 Author Posted March 25, 2010 Who is going to support the woman and her children in my example if there was no coverage? You're still clueless. And in case you didn't know if you have a million dollar policy and the right policy if you have cancer with no health insurance you could access anywhere from 50-90% of that million dollars for anything you wish (want to take a trip around the world? Do it). Let's see health insurance do that. It's not my or your responsiblity or the federal gov's. So I don't care about your financial advice or anything else you have to say because your just a smug argumentative piece of crap. You would never talk to me like that face to face because you would be afraid of a beat down. Your just a chicken **** hiding behind the internet. Same with Alaska Darren and DC Tom.
meazza Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 It's not my or your responsiblity or the federal gov's. So I don't care about your financial advice or anything else you have to say because your just a smug argumentative piece of crap. You would never talk to me like that face to face because you would be afraid of a beat down. Your just a chicken **** hiding behind the internet. Same with Alaska Darren and DC Tom. When all else fails, use the "you wouldn't talk to me like than in person" argument. Works everytime...
Alaska Darin Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 It's not my or your responsiblity or the federal gov's. So I don't care about your financial advice or anything else you have to say because your just a smug argumentative piece of crap. You would never talk to me like that face to face because you would be afraid of a beat down. Your just a chicken **** hiding behind the internet. Same with Alaska Darren and DC Tom. Yeah, each of us would be afraid of your physical awesomeness. Because we're under the age of 10 and real life is just like the primary school playground. I love when people like you realize their argument is based on nothing but emotion so they elevate to faux violence. You'd have made a great dictator. I know you didn't just threaten posters on TBD because that's against the Terms of Service and is worthy of a ban. If you can't handle a little name calling, politics isn't going to be a great arena for you.
Recommended Posts