Health insurance should cover whatever the insurer and the insured agree upon. Isn't that the whole purpose of contracts? Government shouldn't even be involved in this stuff, unless it is a court settling a contract dispute.

borndead1 wrote:

For the sake of discussion, let's presume health insurance is optional:

rfenst wrote:

Health Insurers deny all sorts of medications prescribed by doctors because they simply don't want to pay for it. This happens all the time. Would this situation Fluke is discussing be more acceptable if that was the given reason or is the problem the fact that the call was based on religious grounds?

yardobeef wrote:

Thanks to the Kenyan King...it's not so whatever point you were attempting to make is moot.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

For those incapable of staying on point or dragging a straw-man into the discussion... :)

rfenst wrote:

For the sake of discussion, let's presume health insurance is optional:

So, you would like to have health or other important insurance to be a contract solely between the insurer and the insured? No government oversight? No standardization of benefits such that each company's type of policy is standard to all who have that particular type of policy? No standardized claim practices? No approval that the policy is being administered under state and federal law? What individual could challenge an insurer on their own and not expect to lose? Government involvement in standardization prevents a tremendous amount of litigation. It makes it (somewhat) easier for insurance policies to be understandable by lay people and lawyers. Most important, it protects consumers from predatory practices and makes certain insurers licensed to do business in a state are financially solvent. Ever have a claim go unpaid because the insurer couldn't afford to pay it? So, you have two choices: 1) Go self-insured; or 2) BOHIC with unregulated insurers. You are free to choose whichever you prefer- or not.

rfenst wrote:

Staying on point?

Gimmie a break!

All you blather on about is "straw men". YOU cannot even make sense without dragging your feelings into a discussion anymore!

YOU voted for the clown...government mandated "healthcare" was what your type wanted! Gimmie...gimmie...gimmie...don't think for one second about who's gonna pay for it or if it even makes sense for a government to even enter the private enterprise arena, but that's why we're in the mess we're in as a nation. We've been run aground by mealy-moouthed lawyers writing legislation just like what you're arguing about!

YOU stay on point!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

If Ms Fluk brings her body I'll bring da Rubbers !!!

jackconrad wrote:

Obviously you're a Neanderthal who doesn't realize that healthcare and highspeed internet are basic human rights that the government MUST provide.

Jerk.

ZRX1200 wrote:

You forgot the free cell phones with free minutes and more free minutes if you get your friends to sign up for free $#!T.

Incentivizing learned helplessness.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Safelink/ 

Rclay wrote:

More precisely, they don't cover many name-brand medicines, but do almost always cover generics. When the drug isn't available as a generic, they still provide suitable (although sometimes not ideal) alternatives. And, there is almost always an over-ride provision that ultimately allows the name-brand to be used when the generics or substitutes are ineffective.

rfenst wrote:

Well, if you're okay with generic alternatives, why wasn't Miss Fluke or her "drowning in debt" classmates? A few of the generic birth control pills are available at Wally World for 4 bucks/month without insurance. Of course, I'm assuming that the $3000 birth control is the pill. Could be expensive designer condoms or something.

yardobeef wrote:

I was on point. The post I responded to had to deal with insurance contracts and government oversight/intrusion. Hell, I'd say I was directly on point.

As to my "feelings", why do you care so much what my independent thoughts are?

Hell yeah I voted for Obama- the old man and young chick were "greater evils" in my mind.

As to health care, you are damn right that I want there to be a minimum standard that Americans are entitled to. And, I am willing to pay for it when they truly cannot afford it. I am sick of seeing people use ER's as primary care doctors and my local tax dollars going to pay for it. I am sick of my health insurance premiums being so high because the hospitals need the additional revenue to remain afloat. Now, the cost of these problems is not being borne by all. I think it should and will be in due time.

Legislatures write legislation? Give me a break. Lobbyists and their interested clients industries write a boat-load of legislation, then the legislators tinker with it to form coalitions to get enough votes to pass it. The fact that you may not like that legislation has nothing to do with there being lawyer/legislatures. And, don't be so sure it is the legislators writing all the legislation. That's what lobbyists and special interest groups do.

My "feelings" as you put it, are not a straw-man argument. Straw man is a misrepresentation/mis-characterization of a position, which is then refuted in order to make it seem like the faulty argument defeats the original premise. it involves dragging new topics in to a discussion and then refuting them as well to make one appear to be the winner.

So, the way I see it it is your entire last four-line paragraph above that is a "straw man argument". You slid a couple new topics into the conversation that had absolutely nothing to do whith insurance contract and which governments should oversee and ajudicate them. Nice try- again.

rfenst wrote:

Once again you play the Feelings card into another thread.

The government isn't Santa Claus despite whatever you feel you're "entitled" to. You're not entitled to a single damn thing. Contrary to what your parents told you...you aren't "special". Neither am I. Get over yourself for a second and look at the facts. The government that can give you everything you want can take it away...and they will! The price for your precious "healthcare" is far too much than any nation has ever ponied up that provided "free" healthcare. Be careful what you wish for.

This thread isn't about contracts. YOU brought that into a discussion about a Dem operative that wasn't vetted for Primetime. That's a pattern for them. It blows up in their faces too just like the Limbaugh sponsor's that wish they could take back their public outcry to advertise on one of the most successful shows to ever hit the airwaves! Comical to see it all play out.

Like many have already pointed out without going "all in" with the Feelings chips...this about a media whore shilling for her bosses on an issue that is a complete fraud on almost every facet. You would be better served to actually READ the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers. You have absolutely no idea what the US government is SUPPOSED to provide and bemoaning about contracts and wish lists prove it. You're crying about entitlements and things that are above and beyond what you can provide for even your own children for their entire lives...or your neighbors...or even your own state! The system is broke. Figuratively and actually, you'd be better served to come up with a list of things you want removed from the dole instead of adding more cradle to grave wish items. Don't know how to break it to a person like you in any simpler terms. When the crying sheep finally mature into adults and realize that you have to make it on your own we'll be able to fix what's wrong. Crying about more presents under the Christmas tree isn't going to fix a damn thing. If you can't see this lady for what she is and what she's doing then you're a bigger fool than I thought.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Once again you play the Feelings card into another thread.

The government isn't Santa Claus despite whatever you feel you're "entitled" to. You're not entitled to a single damn thing. Contrary to what your parents told you...you aren't "special". Neither am I. Get over yourself for a second and look at the facts. The government that can give you everything you want can take it away...and they will! The price for your precious "healthcare" is far too much than any nation has ever ponied up that provided "free" healthcare. Be careful what you wish for.

This thread isn't about contracts. YOU brought that into a discussion about a Dem operative that wasn't vetted for Primetime. That's a pattern for them. It blows up in their faces too just like the Limbaugh sponsor's that wish they could take back their public outcry to advertise on one of the most successful shows to ever hit the airwaves! Comical to see it all play out.

Like many have already pointed out without going "all in" with the Feelings chips...this about a media whore shilling for her bosses on an issue that is a complete fraud on almost every facet. You would be better served to actually READ the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers. You have absolutely no idea what the US government is SUPPOSED to provide and bemoaning about contracts and wish lists prove it. You're crying about entitlements and things that are above and beyond what you can provide for even your own children for their entire lives...or your neighbors...or even your own state! The system is broke. Figuratively and actually, you'd be better served to come up with a list of things you want removed from the dole instead of adding more cradle to grave wish items. Don't know how to break it to a person like you in any simpler terms. When the crying sheep finally mature into adults and realize that you have to make it on your own we'll be able to fix what's wrong. Crying about more presents under the Christmas tree isn't going to fix a damn thing. If you can't see this lady for what she is and what she's doing then you're a bigger fool than I thought.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Jerk.

rfenst wrote:

F'n classic.


Have a Kleenex and a good cry.😢

DrMaddVibe wrote: