Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 819531)
An insurer evaluates every single individual, and provides the individual with a premium price which the insurer expects can net him a profit.
This is because the vast majority of Americans receive their health insurance via group policies through their employers. Pre-regulation, if the 1% were unable to afford care, their insurance policy would expire, and the insurance company would not renew their policy. It just isn't profitable to do so. When that happens, the cost of health care for the 99% remains relatively affordable. If, however, you acquire an expensive chronic illness, they will determine that you cost more than they can make on you. This spreads personal responsibility to not get aids, or diabetes, or whatever. It just doesn't make sense to me that I would be responsible for someone else's health. I will see if I can pull these numbers up, but I was under the impression that the program was paid for entirely by member premiums. After a brief search, these are my discoveries: The only number i was able to turn up was 28% member paid. |
Today in the news:
President Obama has officially requested an increase [of $1.2 trillion] to the statutory debt limit. Keeping his oath to the public trust Rand Paul returned money he didn’t need to the U.S. Treasury...The Kentucky Republican and tea-party favorite said Thursday he’s returning $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury — money from his operating budget that his office never spent. The half million dollars represents about 16 percent of Paul’s annual budget |
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...orni9emy-w.gif
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...pmxgro2pqa.gif we all gotta grow up sometime... |
they did this in Nazi germany too:
|
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 819606)
they did this in Nazi germany too:
BS YOUTUBE VIDEO |
|
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun
(Post 819642)
Where is that 1000 coming from? And how is this legal? And why is that fhaggot mayor?
|
Originally Posted by UrbanFuturistic
(Post 819687)
gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. I'll leave why is he mayor to your imagination.
Jimmy Conway: "You took your first pinch like a man and you learned the two greatest things in life." Young Henry: "What?" Jimmy: "Look at me. Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 819691)
Jimmy Conway: "You took your first pinch like a man and you learned the two greatest things in life."
Young Henry: "What?" Jimmy: "Look at me. Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." Nvm. Goodfellas. Either way, what's it got to do with what I said? |
not much.
but they want you to violate the laws of the streets. |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 819564)
Again, I am feeling dense here, but I think your point is slipping past me. In the quote above, you are talking hypothetical, correct? In reality, US health insurance providers rarely evaluate individuals for their health conditions before issuing the policy.
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 819564)
This is because the vast majority of Americans receive their health insurance via group policies through their employers.
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 819564)
I admit to not being completely up to date on existing regulations regarding health insurance. Can you explain this more explicitly? I'm thinking this is a reference to pre-existing conditions clauses.
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 819564)
Yeah, althose irresponsible women getting breast cancer and those lazy bums contracting MS. ;)
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 819564)
That cheap rate is therefore likely a combination of understanding that the general pool is likely above-average in terms of health and fitness and that it is subsidized by the US government to the tune of 72%. :) |
|
|
A post encompassing two different subjects!
First off, I've actually gotten not so mildly irritated at well-respected press using statism completely..I don't know, effed upily. But blaming all - or even just part of - the bad in society on statism is as foolish as blaming all of - or even just part of - the good in society on statism. Saying statism is bad for (insert reason here) is logically equivalent to saying the entire Human race is bad because Hitler. Saying statism is good for (insert reason here) is equivalent to saying the entire human race is good because Joe Perez. "Statism" is a category almost as encompassing as "the human race". Any form of government, except for one (anarchy) falls under it. Hearing news people go off on how it is good or bad because X makes me convinced the news /has/ gone full retard. Secondly, and this is an interesting topic for me. I mean, I know how two people on here are going to react to this news article, but I'm interested in what other people have to say and the reasonings for them that will incur. Disclaimer: It's from the Daily Fail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ody-parts.html Now, if the guy had thrown - even by accident - something at the train and it caused the lady to get a broken leg, wrist, and an injured shoulder, I do not think anyone in here would disagree with me in saying that the guy would be liable for her injuries. Does this change when it is his body parts? Seriously, do people think the court overreached? Do you think it was a stupid decision, or a smart one? And, most importantly, why do you think this? |
Stupid. Why is anyone liable? How are his parents/family liable? The kid is old enough to be on his own. If he was young enough to need adult supervision, and was killed because his parents were not paying attention then maybe.
Or maybe the train station is liable for not better notifying people that a train is coming. They said it was raining and he was using an umbrella. It's more reasonable to argue that the train station did not do a good enough job in notifying people of an incoming train. Or maybe they need to set up barriers to stop flying body parts. I mean since it is feasibly possible to predict that if someone was hit body parts would fly. In the end, no one should be liable. The lady must assume the risk of things that could possibly happen in the world when she left that morning. |
I agree with FRT. I think had he been acting with malicious intent, the lawsuit would be justified. But it was an accident, not even a suicide. Then again, this is Chicago were talking about here.
There should have been something that distinguished this train from other, slower moving trains, at the very least. So I could see a suit against Amtrak as being justified. But then, I never liked the same level crossings in the city anyhow. Where we lived in the suburbs, you always had to go over or mostly under to get to the platform. Suing this boys family is only going to add insult to the injury of losing their child in such a horrific fashion. I could see both raising suit against Amtrak, but again, this is very left leaning Chicago were dealing with here, so it's not surprise to me that this woman is looking for what ultimately equates to a handout. |
Isn't is common to sue the family of the teenager who crashed his car full of friends who all die the the accident?
how is this any different? |
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/
So, it's official. The DHS is interested in what YOU are saying about it - and are paying a company to spy on you to find out what you are saying about it. |
more jon stewart and rp
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands