2012 Election - Page 3 - Nubblies.net Forums

f3lix · 10-27-2010, 01:36 PM

Blonde, I did address Repug's point. I stated that I want to put them in office to see what they can/will do. We won't know how effective they are until we elect them.

Mr. Blonde · 10-27-2010, 07:28 PM

F3lix, that is not addressing Repug's post.

Ugly Bastard · 10-28-2010, 12:42 AM

Many protestant churches promoted temperance after prohibition ended.

Mr. Blonde · 11-02-2010, 09:40 AM

What the 111th Congress accomplished:

YouTube - Rachel Maddow (1) 111th Congress put policy before politics

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 06:05 PM

That video just reinforces my dislike. More and more and more government control of what should simply not be under government control.

Mr. Blonde · 11-02-2010, 06:21 PM

So you're against regulation even when they're completely fucking everybody over? Of course, you're part of the finance crew here on Nubblies, your attitude is hardly surprising.

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

So you're against regulation even when they're completely fucking everybody over? Of course, you're part of the finance crew here on Nubblies, your attitude is hardly surprising.

Well I missed the "anti-fucking everybody over bill" so, I can't comment on that one.

I did catch the one where the government purchased the largest automaker in the world, and forced people to buy a product regardless of their need for it.

Mr. Blonde · 11-02-2010, 06:38 PM

You know very well I was referring to insurance companies, wall street and sudden banking hikes.

I was never really that big a fan of the GM acquisition, though. I'll give you that.

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 06:43 PM

Insurance companies are "screwing everybody over" so you want to support the people who forced a bill through that makes buying from them mandatory?

Explain.

ninjaface · 11-02-2010, 06:48 PM

Health insurance companies need to be non-for profit.

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjaface

Health insurance companies need to be non-for profit.

Why? If a for-profit can do it better (it can), why on Earth would you make up such an arbitrary law?

ninjaface · 11-02-2010, 06:51 PM

Basic health insurance should be nonforprofit, while secondary insurance can be for profit. That way if you have the extra money you can buy the extra coverage.

f3lix · 11-02-2010, 06:55 PM

Medical research costs way too much money to act like everybody should just get freebies and cheap coverage.

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjaface

Basic health insurance should be nonforprofit, while secondary insurance can be for profit. That way if you have the extra money you can buy the extra coverage.

The profit or non-profit standing of the company has nothing to do with what prices they are going to charge or the service they are going to provide.

Non-profit does need mean charity or government run.

Mr. Blonde · 11-02-2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

Insurance companies are "screwing everybody over" so you want to support the people who forced a bill through that makes buying from them mandatory?

Explain.

You do know that they forced everyone to do that to get around pre-existing condition clauses, right? As I understand it, the logic is: If everybody HAS to have health insurance, they can't deny it for anybody. I have no evidence for this, but I feel like more people get denied who want health insurance than people who just plain don't want it.

Who else is there to support? I realize i'm getting fucked either way, but I've been around a little bit, and had the chance to see healthcare in a few other countries. Why is health care, in general, so fucking expensive in the U.S.? I got a local anesthetic and surgery on my big toe in for

$30

. I got general anesthetic, surgery, two pins in my finger that was broken in half and a night in the hospital, with no insurance, for $1,000 USD at one of the best hospitals in Korea.

Regardless, I understand where you're coming from. I shouldn't just be attacking; as I said, I realize it's kind of a shitty deal either way, and we both seem to think certain practices are unjust. What other alternatives could we do in the future to remedy these issues?

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 07:02 PM

Pre-existing clauses are not an unreasonable thing; if somebody did not accurately reflect the fact that they had a pre-existing condition, they are committing fraud.

ninjaface · 11-02-2010, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

The profit or non-profit standing of the company has nothing to do with what prices they are going to charge or the service they are going to provide.

Non-profit does need mean charity or government run.

I assume you meant "does not mean". If so, I know that. I am not advocating free health care. Just affordable health care.

You're saying a health insurance company that simply has to cover overhead costs is not going to have overall lower prices? Why is that?

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjaface

I assume you meant "does not mean". If so, I know that. I am not advocating free health care. Just affordable health care.

You're saying a health insurance company that simply has to cover overhead costs is not going to have overall lower prices? Why is that?

They both have overhead, they both pay employees, they both have the same cost. The only difference is the for-profit has the incentive to be successful. In terms of the "well that profit should go to the taxpayers": A) No, it shouldn't, they didn't earn it. B)The non-profit "costs" money out of the budget because of their tax free status.

So basically you have two companies, but one actually has an incentive to be good.

Mr. Blonde · 11-02-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

Pre-existing clauses are not an unreasonable thing

So you're very much in favor of someone, who has a pre-existing condition, being dropped from their insurance if a medical condition comes up, or being unable to get affordable health care in the first place?

Mr. Blonde · 11-02-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f3lix

Medical research costs way too much money to act like everybody should just get freebies and cheap coverage.

What is up with you guys? How can you say things like this and not understand how dim and selfish your view for the future progress of human society is?

Fruitacious B · 11-02-2010, 08:01 PM

National Healthcare makes sense, and it has worked in pretty much every country that has it.

I lean left mainly on moral grounds aside from that. I can't vote for a group that is so openly preys on rural Americans with religion and discrimination. Morals don't have much place in politics, but if there has to be a choice, I'm liberal in that sense (gay rights, abortion, etc). And I've heard a lot of people bitch about the money that's being spent by liberals without any inkling of aknowledgement to the money that's been lost in the eight years before Obama to the war and the Bush administration. In my opinion, two years is not enough time to clean up the mess, and four probably won't be either. Maybe when some of the issues that shouldn't be relevant are cleared up, I'll be able to vote more conservatively...well, I 'hope' so.

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

So you're very much in favor of someone, who has a pre-existing condition, being dropped from their insurance if a medical condition comes up, or being unable to get affordable health care in the first place?

I'm in favor of a person having to fully disclose their health when they are signing up for health insurance.

I've been through the Health and Life insurance licensing, and I'm not sure what specifically you are talking about.

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

What is up with you guys? How can you say things like this and not understand how dim and selfish your view for the future progress of human society is?

Because we understand that it isn't selfish.

If you don't reward people for breakthroughs, with profit, there will be less breakthroughs.

Compare the discoveries by evil big pharma vs charity.

I'll take my life saving medicine thank you very much. How many lives have been saved by Western, profitable, "evil" pharma companies?

Mr. Blonde · 11-02-2010, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

I'm not sure what specifically you are talking about.

Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind

Beebs · 11-02-2010, 08:32 PM

Well I don't think an insurance company should be forced to take on anybody they don't want, and I think they have the right to make sure the initial contract was valid (I know in Life insurance after a few years it doesn't matter, if the insurance company hasn't noticed it, they can't do anything about it).

Now, as for what to do with those who can't get insurance at all because of serious illness, now I'm ready to hear some ideas about spending tax money on them, we are not nor should not be without a safety net for the most vulnerable. I just want to make sure that safety net is not dragged down by slackers and leaches.

10-27-2010, 07:28 PM	#52 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	F3lix, that is not addressing Repug's post.
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

11-02-2010, 06:21 PM	#56 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	So you're against regulation even when they're completely fucking everybody over? Of course, you're part of the finance crew here on Nubblies, your attitude is hardly surprising.
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

11-02-2010, 06:38 PM	#58 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	You know very well I was referring to insurance companies, wall street and sudden banking hikes. I was never really that big a fan of the GM acquisition, though. I'll give you that.
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

11-02-2010, 08:01 PM	#71 (permalink)
Fruitacious B Bokononist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,595 Internets: 11801	National Healthcare makes sense, and it has worked in pretty much every country that has it. I lean left mainly on moral grounds aside from that. I can't vote for a group that is so openly preys on rural Americans with religion and discrimination. Morals don't have much place in politics, but if there has to be a choice, I'm liberal in that sense (gay rights, abortion, etc). And I've heard a lot of people bitch about the money that's being spent by liberals without any inkling of aknowledgement to the money that's been lost in the eight years before Obama to the war and the Bush administration. In my opinion, two years is not enough time to clean up the mess, and four probably won't be either. Maybe when some of the issues that shouldn't be relevant are cleared up, I'll be able to vote more conservatively...well, I 'hope' so.
	"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." \|vonnegut

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The 2008 Presidential Election	Ugly Bastard	General Chat	23	12-19-2006 10:27 PM
So This Rolling Stone Article Says Bush Rigged 2004 Election	Ugly Bastard	General Chat	3	06-13-2006 07:49 PM
One last thing about the presidential election	f3lix	News	0	11-15-2004 09:31 PM

10-27-2010, 01:36 PM	#51 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	Blonde, I did address Repug's point. I stated that I want to put them in office to see what they can/will do. We won't know how effective they are until we elect them.

10-28-2010, 12:42 AM	#53 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	Many protestant churches promoted temperance after prohibition ended.

11-02-2010, 06:05 PM	#55 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	That video just reinforces my dislike. More and more and more government control of what should simply not be under government control.

11-02-2010, 06:43 PM	#59 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	Insurance companies are "screwing everybody over" so you want to support the people who forced a bill through that makes buying from them mandatory? Explain.

11-02-2010, 06:48 PM	#60 (permalink)
ninjaface Level 20 Holothetan Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Space Posts: 5,245 Internets: 210144	Health insurance companies need to be non-for profit.

11-02-2010, 06:51 PM	#62 (permalink)
ninjaface Level 20 Holothetan Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Space Posts: 5,245 Internets: 210144	Basic health insurance should be nonforprofit, while secondary insurance can be for profit. That way if you have the extra money you can buy the extra coverage.

11-02-2010, 06:55 PM	#63 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	Medical research costs way too much money to act like everybody should just get freebies and cheap coverage.

11-02-2010, 07:02 PM	#66 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	Pre-existing clauses are not an unreasonable thing; if somebody did not accurately reflect the fact that they had a pre-existing condition, they are committing fraud.

11-02-2010, 08:32 PM	#75 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	Well I don't think an insurance company should be forced to take on anybody they don't want, and I think they have the right to make sure the initial contract was valid (I know in Life insurance after a few years it doesn't matter, if the insurance company hasn't noticed it, they can't do anything about it). Now, as for what to do with those who can't get insurance at all because of serious illness, now I'm ready to hear some ideas about spending tax money on them, we are not nor should not be without a safety net for the most vulnerable. I just want to make sure that safety net is not dragged down by slackers and leaches.