Santorum lost my vote.
03-17-2012, 05:56 PM
#141
Probably not going to vote. Which, honestly, really depresses me.
I cannot vote for Obama. The dismantlement of our space program was a national embarrassment and the recent talks of taking away benefits for soldiers, active and retired, is disgraceful. I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.
I cannot vote for Obama. The dismantlement of our space program was a national embarrassment and the recent talks of taking away benefits for soldiers, active and retired, is disgraceful. I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.
Reply
0
0
03-17-2012, 06:19 PM
#145
He won't be able to during his time in office, so I'm not worried about him on that subject. I do worry that something along those lines will become a present problem during my career in the military.
Regardless: "I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.
That is not a man of character. That is inexcusable."
This is what broke it for me. I can't even view him as a man anymore. He's a disgrace.
Reply
0
0
03-17-2012, 06:21 PM
#146
I'll look for them later. Like I said, it was never "proposed" just talked about. I'm not worried about too much, though.
He won't be able to during his time in office, so I'm not worried about him on that subject. I do worry that something along those lines will become a present problem during my career in the military.
Regardless: "I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.
That is not a man of character. That is inexcusable."
This is what broke it for me. I can't even view him as a man anymore. He's a disgrace.
He won't be able to during his time in office, so I'm not worried about him on that subject. I do worry that something along those lines will become a present problem during my career in the military.
Regardless: "I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.
That is not a man of character. That is inexcusable."
This is what broke it for me. I can't even view him as a man anymore. He's a disgrace.
I can't even google up anything that you've talked about, which gives me a strong hunch that you've been visiting certain sources that you shouldn't be taking seriously.
My best guess is you are referencing the Fort Drum speech, which frankly, I'm shocked that you are reacting like this to. He confused two medal of honor recipients - I mean, it's embarassing, but your reaction makes it sound like he fucked your dog, or your sister/mother/dad in the ***.
----, as I think about it, you must have been up in arms over Bush's military gaffes, right?
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 12:12 PM
#149
Probably from the perception that programs which are administered by either a state or federal government tend to be (pick one or more):
- Inefficiently / Ineptly administered (DMV, EPA, etc)
- Wasteful (eg: $3,000 toilet seat)
- Poorly managed and in need of constant bailing-out (Social Security)
- Susceptible to abuse and graft (welfare, food stamps, etc)
- Worse than the commercial alternative (public housing, public transportation, etc)
Most of those statements may be the perception, but except for the final one, are either untrue or only partly true.
The system we have now isn't all that great either. Private insurance, by definition, adds overhead. It has to, since people are employed by insurance companies, to say nothing of stock dividends.
Now, that overhead is tolerable when we use insurance solely for casualty mitigation, which was its original intent. Eg, we carry auto insurance in case our car is stolen or we get into a wreck, but we wouldn't dream of submitting an insurance claim for an oil change or new tires. And we carry homeowners insurance in case the house is burglarized or burns down, but we don't file homeowners claims every time we have to replace a leaky faucet or an old furnace.
In other words, insurance allows everyone to pay a little bit into a common pool that will be drawn from in the statistically unlikely event that any one single individual loses their house in a fire or has their car stolen.
The trouble is that, with healthcare, we seem to want to pass everything through an insurance company.
Case in point: several months ago I went to CVS to get a flu shot. One of the first questions they asked me was for my insurance card.
Huh? This is a $25 flu shot. Why on earth would I expect my health insurance to cover this?
The same holds true for damn near every medical procedure. I go to the doctor for checkup, and if I want I can submit that to my insurance and just pay a $40 co-pay. If I had ****, then I could go get a mammogram and the insurance would cover that. The list goes on.
And yeah, I'm aware of the argument that by covering trivial little shіt like this, the insurance company ultimately saves money by preventing me from getting pneumonia, or developing breast cancer, or whatever.
But that doesn't make the numbers work!
The problem is that if everyone expects insurance to pay for everything, then ultimately insurance "pays" for nothing. All they do is pass 100% of the costs straight back to you, along with a markup for their profit margin. It's not distributed liability anymore, it's just a middleman.
Insurance only "works" when it is reserved for catastrophic events, and everyday costs come out of pocket. If I contract spinal neurocysticercosis and wind up in the hospital for two weeks, then I'll file an insurance claim. If I get shot in the knee with an arrow and require reconstructive surgery and extensive physical therapy, then I'll file an insurance claim.
If I'm going in for a routine prostate exam, that's not something insurance is supposed to cover.
And that's why the system is "broken."
Now, that overhead is tolerable when we use insurance solely for casualty mitigation, which was its original intent. Eg, we carry auto insurance in case our car is stolen or we get into a wreck, but we wouldn't dream of submitting an insurance claim for an oil change or new tires. And we carry homeowners insurance in case the house is burglarized or burns down, but we don't file homeowners claims every time we have to replace a leaky faucet or an old furnace.
In other words, insurance allows everyone to pay a little bit into a common pool that will be drawn from in the statistically unlikely event that any one single individual loses their house in a fire or has their car stolen.
The trouble is that, with healthcare, we seem to want to pass everything through an insurance company.
Case in point: several months ago I went to CVS to get a flu shot. One of the first questions they asked me was for my insurance card.
Huh? This is a $25 flu shot. Why on earth would I expect my health insurance to cover this?
The same holds true for damn near every medical procedure. I go to the doctor for checkup, and if I want I can submit that to my insurance and just pay a $40 co-pay. If I had ****, then I could go get a mammogram and the insurance would cover that. The list goes on.
And yeah, I'm aware of the argument that by covering trivial little shіt like this, the insurance company ultimately saves money by preventing me from getting pneumonia, or developing breast cancer, or whatever.
But that doesn't make the numbers work!
The problem is that if everyone expects insurance to pay for everything, then ultimately insurance "pays" for nothing. All they do is pass 100% of the costs straight back to you, along with a markup for their profit margin. It's not distributed liability anymore, it's just a middleman.
Insurance only "works" when it is reserved for catastrophic events, and everyday costs come out of pocket. If I contract spinal neurocysticercosis and wind up in the hospital for two weeks, then I'll file an insurance claim. If I get shot in the knee with an arrow and require reconstructive surgery and extensive physical therapy, then I'll file an insurance claim.
If I'm going in for a routine prostate exam, that's not something insurance is supposed to cover.
And that's why the system is "broken."
Let me use an example. In several states, they used to let people pay a cash price that was substantially lower than their posted insurance rates.
Then the insurance companies lobbied the legislature to make it illegal to do it. The bills passed. Now citizens must pay the same in cash or via insurance. Did I mention the part where the insurance companies can still negotiate down payments with the hospitals, unlike citizens?
I cannot disagree with your post, but by the same token, the situation we are in with respect to that is at least in part due to the health insurance companies actions - including them lobbying legislators to get laws passed that make them required to have.
The reason why the Republicans supported the concept of "If you don't have health insurance, you pay a fine" concept in health insurance reform for so long is tied to this (I've covered it before that it was a Republican idea, from a Republican think tank, that was supported by the Republicans for 2 decades (2007 was the last time) untill Obama created Obamacare. Then it was suddenly bad) - Obama inserted that into Obamacare to get Republican support even.
Soo...What I'm getting at is I agree with you in a general sense, but you are only looking at one side of the issue with health insurance.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 01:04 PM
#150
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
I love the idea that some of you think more regulation is needed for healthcare. There are some things that shouldn't be insured...particularly high-risk behavior. I see the same failed logic in flood insurance where the NFIP insures properties which are blown-over twice per decade yet we keep insuring them at artificially low rates so they can maintain an insurance policy.
I look at people like my father who is receiving free health-care since he did not plan for the rest of his life, smokes like a freight train, never exercises, eats like ----, drinks every day, and bangs anything without a condom...and tax payers are paying to keep him alive for reasons I don't understand. People like this should not be insured and I don't want my premiums to cover their risk behaviors.
I look at people like my father who is receiving free health-care since he did not plan for the rest of his life, smokes like a freight train, never exercises, eats like ----, drinks every day, and bangs anything without a condom...and tax payers are paying to keep him alive for reasons I don't understand. People like this should not be insured and I don't want my premiums to cover their risk behaviors.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 01:21 PM
#153
So if you wrecked your race car and got fuked up you would refuse health insurance? Or are you saying that people who get it for free like your dad (Is it a military thing? How did he get his insurance) who exhibit high risk behavior should not be insure when they do stupid ----? That I can agree with.
Edit, just saw this:
Santorum renews vow to root out obscene pornography
Edit, just saw this:
Santorum renews vow to root out obscene pornography
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 01:28 PM
#154
I cannot agree with your argument if it is as you have stated it, Hustly.
Insurance companies and consumers should have the choice to contract high risk behavior, banning coverage of high risk behavior without a choice to get it results in staunch opposition from me.
Are you referring specifically to free health care in your earlier posts? Admittantly, I'm not certain where your regulation bit is coming from, as the most-recent-post before yours was noting that increased regulation was at fault for some of the increased costs/problems with insurance.
Insurance companies and consumers should have the choice to contract high risk behavior, banning coverage of high risk behavior without a choice to get it results in staunch opposition from me.
Are you referring specifically to free health care in your earlier posts? Admittantly, I'm not certain where your regulation bit is coming from, as the most-recent-post before yours was noting that increased regulation was at fault for some of the increased costs/problems with insurance.
Last edited by blaen99; 03-18-2012 at 01:42 PM.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 01:42 PM
#155
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
So if you wrecked your race car and got fuked up you would refuse health insurance? Or are you saying that people who get it for free like your dad (Is it a military thing? How did he get his insurance) who exhibit high risk behavior should not be insure when they do stupid ----? That I can agree with.
Edit, just saw this:
Santorum renews vow to root out obscene pornography
Edit, just saw this:
Santorum renews vow to root out obscene pornography
My father complained that a health insurance policy for him was over $1000 per month. I bet a health insurance policy for a 60-year old man who doesn't smoke, drink heavily, and isn't banging -----s and vulnerable to VD is going to be cheaper than what my father was offered.
Reply
1
1
03-18-2012, 01:47 PM
#156
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Are you referring specifically to free health care in your earlier posts? Admittantly, I'm not certain where your regulation bit is coming from, as the most-recent-post before yours was noting that increased regulation was at fault for some of the increased costs/problems with insurance.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 01:47 PM
#157
No, I read my health-insurance policy and there is nothing that precludes coverage for something on the racetrack. I wouldn't get a policy with that preclusion. I should also note that my car is not insured on the racetrack, and my insurer is fully aware of the mods on my car.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 01:50 PM
#158
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
I've been through the policy and it appears that my green car's policy is valid and I'm also aware that filing a claim for a wreck that happens on the track is insurance fraud. This is one reason I track a Miata and not a McLaren. There are other reasons that I won't get into here.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 01:52 PM
#159
I don't need coverage for STDs and AIDS because I'm not bare-backing poz-rods on the weekend, I should not have an insurance policy that covers it. Another example is how my GF is never, ever going to need prenatal care because she will never be pregnant; she should not have to pay for that coverage. If someone wants health insurance coverage for risk behavior, they should pay for it, rather than have the federal government force them to cover all conditions.
Don't be so dense.
Don't be so dense.
As an example, the federal government does not force the cable companies to provide their channels in packages, and actually has been trying to force them to offer their service a la carte for a long time. Are you trying to say that it's the federal government forcing health insurance companies to not provide a la carte plans?
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 02:00 PM
#160
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Could you elaborate on what specifically you are referring to here? Or is it meant as a generalized statement that is incredibly difficult to try to discuss?
As an example, the federal government does not force the cable companies to provide their channels in packages, and actually has been trying to force them to offer their service a la carte for a long time. Are you trying to say that it's the federal government forcing health insurance companies to not provide a la carte plans?
As an example, the federal government does not force the cable companies to provide their channels in packages, and actually has been trying to force them to offer their service a la carte for a long time. Are you trying to say that it's the federal government forcing health insurance companies to not provide a la carte plans?
Reply
0
0
