PDA

View Full Version : Do You DUmmies Even Understand What Happened Yesterday?



txradioguy
06-29-2012, 02:18 AM
Or are you just so eager to get everything form the government tit that you don't care?

This "victory" on free healthcare is a Pyrrhic victory.

What the SCOTUS has now decreed is that anything you do anything you buy anything you use can be taxed in relation to your health.

If you choose to drive a minivan or an SUV and not a Volt or a Prius...you can be taxed.

You or your kid plays a sport like softball or soccer or football...you can be taxed.

Have more than one kid? Tax.

Have too many abortions...tax.

You Cali DUmmies...like the beach? Like to get a tan...extra tax on you.

Stay in your parents basement and don't excercise cause you'd rather play X-Box all day? Extra tax on you.

Hey you pothead DUmmies...guess what...you get taxed extra too.

Homosexual DUmmies...you live a high risk lifestyle...extra tax on you.

All of you window licking Libtards that claim Republicans want to intrude on every aspect of your life just opened a Pandora's box of your own making and from your own party.

Every behavior...every lifestyle choice...every purchase you make can now be controlled and altered if not completely stopped by way of a tax because now EVERYTHING can be linked back to your health and healthcare.

Hope you're happy...becaues personally it frightens the shit out of me.

Bailey
06-29-2012, 06:55 AM
I love listening to them say "Obamacare will lower the cost of healthcare" LOL ya right..


Tx you are right its scary what the govt will tax you into doing next.

txradioguy
06-29-2012, 07:22 AM
Tx you are right its scary what the govt will tax you into doing next.

And the Feds have now been given the greeen light to tax anything we do in the name of our "health".

SarasotaRepub
06-29-2012, 07:58 AM
Anyone who believes the "costs to us" of health care are now going to go down
because of ObamaCare is a complete Moron.


And when the costs don't go down, the DUmmies will blame Bu$h. :rolleyes:

txradioguy
06-29-2012, 08:40 AM
Anyone who believes the "costs to us" of health care are now going to go down
because of ObamaCare is a complete Moron.


And when the costs don't go down, the DUmmies will blame Bu$h. :rolleyes:

They won't blame Bush SR...they will increase their call for single payer...and blame Republicans for the high cost of healthcare because Obama didn't push for single payer.

Wibbins
06-29-2012, 10:51 AM
I sort of like the idea that people who go to tanning beds, large cancer machines, have higher PREMIUMS, because they will most likely have skin cancer as they age and sit in the ez-bake oven more.

I like the idea that preexisting conditions are not denied in certain instances like switching insurance companies, now if you don't have insurance and you smoke and end up having lung cancer no you don't deserve to get insurance to pay your medical bills fully, you could have used that cig money for insurance payments, but no you decided to be irresponsible.


I'm waiting for Obama to say, You guys gotta buy some of the volts, you already paid millions to subsidize them, if you don't, you'll face a tax, even though we spent your taxes on cars you'll pay taxes on, and if you don't we'll tax you.



.... Yo dawg, I heard you liked taxes....

Dan D. Doty
06-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Oh Brave New World ... and what fools have charge there.

The Dark Storm is here.

m00
06-29-2012, 03:44 PM
I like the idea that preexisting conditions are not denied in certain instances like switching insurance companies, now if you don't have insurance and you smoke and end up having lung cancer no you don't deserve to get insurance to pay your medical bills fully, you could have used that cig money for insurance payments, but no you decided to be irresponsible.

The thing about pre-existing conditions is that the insurance companies are like "Oh you have been insured with us for 20 years and recently got liver cancer? That's so sad. However... we found this medical report from when you were a teenager saying your dermatologist prescribed acne medication. Since you didn't report your pre-existing condition, we're going to cancel your coverage. Sorry about the cancer."

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 03:56 PM
The thing about pre-existing conditions is that the insurance companies are like "Oh you have been insured with us for 20 years and recently got liver cancer? That's so sad. However... we found this medical report from when you were a teenager saying your dermatologist prescribed acne medication. Since you didn't report your pre-existing condition, we're going to cancel your coverage. Sorry about the cancer."

Can you document this case?

m00
06-29-2012, 03:59 PM
Can you document this case?

I read a lot of articles about healthcare back when this whole thing was in the public debate last time, so I could go and search on google and find them again. But if I did, would you really read them? Or would you reply "I showed the articles to a box of Velveeta cheese and it wasn't impressed" without really looking at them?

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 04:05 PM
I read a lot of articles about healthcare back when this whole thing was in the public debate last time, so I could go and search on google and find them again. But if I did, would you really read them? Or would you reply "I showed the articles to a box of Velveeta cheese and it wasn't impressed" without really looking at them?http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/heureux/lol/mdr-ordi.gif

m00
06-29-2012, 04:07 PM
http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/heureux/lol/mdr-ordi.gif

One thing that really annoys me is on message boards when I do hours of research on a topic, cite all these sources and gather all these links, and try and treat someone on the other side of the argument with respect and good faith... and then I get a snappy 1-liner or something that indicates they didn't want to waste their time with that. Fair enough. But then why should I?

So I can put together a whole thing with sources and research, from what I remember of the articles I'm thinking about. But it seems unlikely based on our past interaction that it will matter / you'll read the post.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 04:12 PM
One thing that really annoys me is on message boards when I do hours of research on a topic, cite all these sources and gather all these links, and try and treat someone on the other side of the argument with respect and good faith... and then I get a snappy 1-liner or something that indicates they didn't want to waste their time with that. Fair enough. But then why should I?

So I can put together a whole thing with sources and research, from what I remember of the articles I'm thinking about. But it seems unlikely based on our past interaction that it will matter / you'll read the post.

You may actually be getting a little smarter.http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17429.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

m00
06-29-2012, 04:25 PM
You may actually be getting a little smarter.http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17429.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

Yeah, I'm always a sucker for trying to have an adult conversation with someone.

Elspeth
06-29-2012, 06:45 PM
I love listening to them say "Obamacare will lower the cost of healthcare" LOL ya right..



Since Obamacare, my monthly premium has gone up 80%. For you Dummies, that's almost double.

3rd-try
06-29-2012, 08:54 PM
I sort of like the idea that people who go to tanning beds, large cancer machines, have higher PREMIUMS, because they will most likely have skin cancer as they age and sit in the ez-bake oven more.

I like the idea that preexisting conditions are not denied in certain instances like switching insurance companies, now if you don't have insurance and you smoke and end up having lung cancer no you don't deserve to get insurance to pay your medical bills fully, you could have used that cig money for insurance payments, but no you decided to be irresponsible.


I'm waiting for Obama to say, You guys gotta buy some of the volts, you already paid millions to subsidize them, if you don't, you'll face a tax, even though we spent your taxes on cars you'll pay taxes on, and if you don't we'll tax you.



.... Yo dawg, I heard you liked taxes....


This , I'm afraid, is an example of how things go from logical to ridiculous, once the politicians, courts and the army of special interest lawyers get started. This is YOUR list of what warrants higher premiums. Now, most everyone probably could produce their little list of occupation,behavior, gun owner, hobbies, family medical history, weight/diet on and on.... until every damn one of us is on some list that "deserves" extra premiums.

'm not offering up solutions here. But, you can see how this could explode.

Retread
06-29-2012, 09:40 PM
....................

'm not offering up solutions here. But, you can see how this could explode.

Not could but will...

Adam Wood
06-30-2012, 10:55 AM
The thing about pre-existing conditions is that the insurance companies are like "Oh you have been insured with us for 20 years and recently got liver cancer? That's so sad. However... we found this medical report from when you were a teenager saying your dermatologist prescribed acne medication. Since you didn't report your pre-existing condition, we're going to cancel your coverage. Sorry about the cancer."
I read a lot of articles about healthcare back when this whole thing was in the public debate last time, so I could go and search on google and find them again. But if I did, would you really read them? Or would you reply "I showed the articles to a box of Velveeta cheese and it wasn't impressed" without really looking at them?
One thing that really annoys me is on message boards when I do hours of research on a topic, cite all these sources and gather all these links, and try and treat someone on the other side of the argument with respect and good faith... and then I get a snappy 1-liner or something that indicates they didn't want to waste their time with that. Fair enough. But then why should I?

So I can put together a whole thing with sources and research, from what I remember of the articles I'm thinking about. But it seems unlikely based on our past interaction that it will matter / you'll read the post.Here's the catch: it's been my observation over the years (and I've been watching this closely for quite a few years now) that virtually all of these "they created some way to deny me coverage" stories turn out to be pretty much purely apocryphal. In pretty much every one of these circumstances, they start out with some tear-jerker how-dare-they-do-that story about little Timmy having brain cancer or whatever, and the big, bad, evil insurance company won't pay for Timmy to have the one operation that will save his life, so they're just throwing little Timmy to the wolves. What I find very often is one of a few scenarios turns out to be the actual case:


Little Timmy's parents are insisting upon some experimental procedure, and their insurance doesn't cover experimental procedures. Experimental stuff, be it drugs, surgery, or whatever, is covered by the trial costs. There's no cause for insurance companies to pay for someone else's research experiment. So what you find is that what actually happened is that whoever is running the trial has already looked at little Timmy's case and determined that he's not a candidate likely to have a positive outcome, so they are not going to waste their rather precious research dollars on a case that has little chance of success. They tell little Timmy's parents that they are not going to spend the research money on little Timmy, but the parents think that if the insurance pays for it (which they won't) then they can get this one procedure that will save Timmy's life. That ain't going to happen. Sorry. In conjunction with the above, there's an old saying out there: there's more than one way to skin a cat. In a whole boatload of these cases, the claim is that there is just this one procedure to save little Timmy's life. Well, that's just not the case. There are dozens of ways to do pretty much everything in medicine, be it drugs or surgical procedures or radiation therapy or whatever. What's actually happening is that the parents are refusing to take the more traditional procedure that the insurance company will pay for and instead insisting upon some new and often not-well-tested procedure that isn't covered under their policy. I call this the Andy Stephenson Syndrome: they're spending many, many weeks and months delaying a treatment that likely will save them for the whole purpose of trying to get some other treatment they can never have that may or may not be any better. Here's a hint, folks: there are no guarantees in medicine. Each individual patient's case is a lightning-strike: something different every time. And you just can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, particularly when that costs precious time. Little Timmy needs a liver/heart/lung transplant, but the chances of success are low. I see this one a lot. Organs are scares, people. They can't risk putting a valuable liver into someone who is unlikely to survive, because doing so denies that liver to someone who is likely to live.