Reply With QuoteThis is LittleAcorn's fourth thread on the PPACA being declared constitutional. Are they bitter, much?
Oh, and:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Why does Sally get clothes instead of an education?
When your neighbor is struggling with the family budget, trying to figure out how much of what kind of foods to cut to pay for Billy's tuition next year or Sally's dress and shoes, it's now clear what she must do if she wants to minimize expenditures in other areas.
The penalty (sorry, it is now a "tax") for not signing up for Obamacare will be much lower than the premiums she'll have to pay if she does sign up. And Obamacare requires that, if she waits until someone is actually sick or injured before signing up, the insurance company must take the sick person despite what is now a "pre-existing condition".
So, what the struggling housewife should do, is clear: She should drop all health insurance. And simply pay the lower amount, the "tax" for not signing up.
Then, if and when somebody in her household gets sick, she should sign up then. The insurance company must take her and pay for the treatments for the sickness. She will pay their (higher) premiums until the sick person is cured. And then she can drop the insurance coverage, and go back to paying the "lower) "tax" instead.
Repeat as necessary.
Anybody see any holes in this idea? She can definitely feed her family better this way, than by remaining permanently signed up for insurance.
Why do any of us need to be signed up for insurance any more, before we actually need medical treatment?
Comment?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
This is LittleAcorn's fourth thread on the PPACA being declared constitutional. Are they bitter, much?
Oh, and:
Why does Sally get clothes instead of an education?
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
He has a good question, though, and points out a by-product of the legislation.This is LittleAcorn's fourth thread on the PPACA being declared constitutional. Are they bitter, much?
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
One that could have been raised in thread #3.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
Irrelevent. He could also have brought up the tea commodity market in India, but didn't see the point in doing so.
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
Relax, hadit, little archaix is simply trolling. He's trying to pretend he has some valid point somewhere, though he has brought up none.
He'd like to get you arguing over the count of forum threads, instead of arguing over how Obamacare will distort family economics and destroy the insurance market, or how it has expanded Federal power to control literally anything humans can ever do in this country.
It's the usual desperate diversion leftist fanatics engage in, when they find they cannot refute any of the arguments showing their programs to be self-destructive failures.
Back to the subject:
Can anyone see any reasons why a housewife, trying hard to scrape together enough money to feed and provide for her family, should continuously pay for "insurance" she no longer needs?
The insurance companies absolutely depend on people staying continuously enrolled, of course, to avoid company bankruptcy. But why is that the housewife's concern, now that Obamacare is "legal" and offers a less-expensive alternative? Her concern is her family, not some insurance company's viability.
Comment?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
The SCotUS just upheld his view. He's not the one trying to "pretend" he has a point. His point has been made.
Not that someone isn't pretending.
Again, it's not the "leftists" who are desperate. Their point was upheld. Yes, someone is desperate, but it's not any "leftists".
She's trying, in your insane story, to figure out what food to cut, while paying for Billy's private school and Sally's new dresses? Her priorities are a little fucked.
So you're mad because she's going to feed Billy and Sally instead of giving money to an insurance company? Really? And you think you're defending freedom?
"All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell [the bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society." Rep. Paul Broun (R)
"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" -- Jerry Falwell
Clearly, the wife will be covered on her husband's insurance. What a dumb thread.
No, just a dumb reply - one that has nothing to do with the question.
Is there any reason the housewife should not drop all health insurance, until someone actually gets sick, and then sign up only long enough for them to get cured, and then drop it again?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
If they are that poor, then the housewife should get a job. She and the family would be covered on husband's health insurance for an extra $50-75/month. You also have no idea what you are talking about. Sick can mean office visit which will be about $100 or so, or sick can mean a five day hospital visit. Which would you like to discuss?
jwreck (06-29-2012)
Say what? To cover my family on my plan costs hundreds of dollars a month, not 50-75. I'd like to know where people work who can actually put their family on their insurance policy for that little.
The principle is the same either way. What incentive is there to maintain health insurance when you can pay a lower penalty and still force a company to give you a treatment plan as opposed to an insurance plan?You also have no idea what you are talking about. Sick can mean office visit which will be about $100 or so, or sick can mean a five day hospital visit. Which would you like to discuss?
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
Even LA gave up on this thread... which was the worst of the bunch. Ok, let's say Susie Housewife wants to try to scam the system. If she or the kids are sick, she will have to pay cash for the office visits, so about $100-150 per visit. Let's say she pays the penalty and signs up for health insurance... her premiums will be higher if there are pre-existing conditions and she'll still have to pay deductible. Let's say instead of an office visit, she ends up in the hospital. Because she's uninsured, the hospital will bill her at a reduced cash price for her hospital stay which will still in the thousands. She then pays the penalty. The penalty does not excuse debt a person racks up because they were not responsible. The thread and the premise is dumb, just admit it.
Except let's not forget that most clinics give cash discounts, so it'll actually be closer to $50-75 per visit. ;-)
I represent the angry, gun toting meat eating people. ~ Denis Leary
The same shepherd that protects the flock leads them to the slaughterhouse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks