The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Obamacare Propoganda
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8394
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Obamacare Propoganda

Source: http://www.facebook.com/#!/ilikeobamacare

Attachment:
chart.jpg
chart.jpg [ 48.4 KiB | Viewed 3302 times ]


Any thoughts on eliminating gender as a rating factor (or discrimination per the chart/site) from determining health care premiums?

Author:  NephyrS [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

If you think about what insurance is, it doesn't make sense to eliminate gender bias for any healthcare that pays for any form of contraception or OB/GYN care.

Insurance is purely based on income vs payouts, and if you're more likely to have to pay out to women than men, than it makes sense that the premiums should be higher.

It's also worth noting, of course, that the way you would equilibrate things would be to make men pay more for services and care that they will never be able to use.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Sort of like how young men pay more than young women for car insurance?

Also, the source is the National Women's Law Center. I'm sure they're completely unbiased in creating that chart. :roll:

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

I demand that my genetic predisposition for cancer, stroke, and heart attack not be discriminated against, too!

Author:  Ienan [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Notice that many of the blue states are some of the most expensive states for health insurance because they disallow gender or age discrimination. For instance, as a 30 year old male who's perfectly healthily living in NJ I have to pay similar rates to everyone else. This ends up being at least $600-$1000 for standard policy, with a decently high deductible. How can auto insurance companies can discriminate, but not health insurance companies? The whole basis for the insurance industry is to discriminate based on pools. That's how they can lower rates for most people, while still protecting their own interests.

Author:  Müs [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

As soon as men can have babies, sure.

Having kids is retarded expensive. ;)

Author:  Lenas [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Ienan wrote:
How can auto insurance companies can discriminate, but not health insurance companies?


They can't anymore, at least not here in CA. Might only be "age discrimination" though.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Ienan wrote:
The whole basis for the insurance industry is to discriminate based on pools. That's how they can lower rates for most people, while still protecting their own interests remaining in business to provide their services for everybody.

Fixed for the 99%.

Author:  Rynar [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

In Rhode Island all health insurance must cover fertility treatments.

Author:  Lydiaa [ Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

Here you could just pick your options to include or exclude pregnancy/fertility. Price scale accordingly.

Author:  Ladas [ Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Ladas wrote:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.



Hehe 219-212 is a strong majority? :) And that is with 34 of his own party voting against it.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Uncle Fester wrote:
Ladas wrote:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.



Hehe 219-212 is a strong majority? :) And that is with 34 of his own party voting against it.


Not to mention gimmicks in the senate. But yeah - the Supreme Court should not take unprecedented steps to overturn a law that involves unprecedented expansion of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Author:  Khross [ Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Does it not disturb any of you that Kagan, who was Solicitor General when these cases were initially brought before the Court, is now sitting on the bench? The decision will be 5/4 in favor of the law.

Author:  Kairtane [ Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Khross wrote:
Does it not disturb any of you that Kagan, who was Solicitor General when these cases were initially brought before the Court, is now sitting on the bench? The decision will be 5/4 in favor of the law.


What does it matter if someone is disturbed by Kagan's presence? As you so often point out, the average American has no say in the election of the person responsible for Supreme Court appointments, even less in the selection of Supreme Court Justices.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

What's disturbing is that she hasn't recused herself.

Author:  TheRiov [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Khross wrote:
Does it not disturb any of you that Kagan, who was Solicitor General when these cases were initially brought before the Court, is now sitting on the bench? The decision will be 5/4 in favor of the law.

Has she already said she wont recuse herself?

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

TheRiov wrote:
Khross wrote:
Does it not disturb any of you that Kagan, who was Solicitor General when these cases were initially brought before the Court, is now sitting on the bench? The decision will be 5/4 in favor of the law.

Has she already said she wont recuse herself?

Um.. Haven't they already heard the case presented?

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Yes, at least 3 days worth.

Author:  Khross [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

For the first time in U.S. History the Supreme Court heard arguments under protest from sitting members--Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. They requested that Kagan be forcibly recused and Stevens allowed to hear the case in her place, since he was the sitting Justice she replaced and heard the initial arguments. She refused to recuse herself, and now the largest constitutional decision since 1865 has been heard by a tainted bench.

The outcome doesn't matter: the result is invalid and flies in the face of more common and U.S. juridical history than I care to fathom.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 

Hmm. What recourse is there to appeal a case tainted at the SC level?

Oh, there isn't one. Way to go, Obama, for completely shitting on the highest court in the land with your pick.

Author:  Hopwin [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Well he did say FDR was his role-model.

Author:  Ladas [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:22 am ]
Post subject: 

I'd love to read the class notes from the Constitutional Law class that Obama taught in Chicago, especially the lessons that centered on Marbury v. Madison.

Author:  Khross [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Before the Civil, two people would have been, at the very least, shot on the Capitol steps for this situation ...

Author:  Ladas [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obamacare Propoganda

Khross wrote:
For the first time in U.S. History the Supreme Court heard arguments under protest from sitting members--Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. They requested that Kagan be forcibly recused and Stevens allowed to hear the case in her place, since he was the sitting Justice she replaced and heard the initial arguments. She refused to recuse herself, and now the largest constitutional decision since 1865 has been heard by a tainted bench.


While I have seen lots of discussion about Kagan (and Thomas) recusing themselves from this, I haven't yet see anything about the three judges you listed participating in the case under protest, and given that Thomas is in the same situation (from a liberal standpoint), I am skeptical he would act as such a lightning rod. Where did you get this information and can you provide a link?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/