|
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
By Altimaomega 2014-08-25 22:41:25
Do you actually like the ACA or do you just simply not have a problem with the surgery being an option?
I don't particularly like ACA, but I do like that procedures are being covered based on their medical merit and not their profitability. Do you like that insurance companies frequently denied life saving procedures like organ transplant under the guise that they were "elective"? What, you are saying that the same procedures aren't still considered "elective" under ACA?
You obviously don't know much about the panel of doctors who have to approve of said surgeries....based on profitability mind you.
He still hasn't answered where the money comes from for a government subsidy either.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-25 22:44:07
Do you actually like the ACA or do you just simply not have a problem with the surgery being an option?
I don't particularly like ACA, but I do like that procedures are being covered based on their medical merit and not their profitability. Do you like that insurance companies frequently denied life saving procedures like organ transplant under the guise that they were "elective"? What, you are saying that the same procedures aren't still considered "elective" under ACA?
You obviously don't know much about the panel of doctors who have to approve of said surgeries....based on profitability mind you.
He still hasn't answered where the money comes from for a government subsidy either.
Holy crap you're thick... It's irrelevant where the money comes from to subsidize premiums, it's the insurance company that's paying for the procedure.
By Altimaomega 2014-08-25 22:51:43
Must be nice to never give straight answers, never have to defend what you say, and still think your not a fool.
You do this all the time, you started this convo by posting a link that made the exact opposite point of what you were trying to "say." The only solace is at least you didn't actually create a thread saying the exact opposite of the title, which you also are prone to do.
Says the guy who never does anything other than troll, call names, and declare himself the winner.
By Altimaomega 2014-08-25 22:56:40
Do you actually like the ACA or do you just simply not have a problem with the surgery being an option?
I don't particularly like ACA, but I do like that procedures are being covered based on their medical merit and not their profitability. Do you like that insurance companies frequently denied life saving procedures like organ transplant under the guise that they were "elective"? What, you are saying that the same procedures aren't still considered "elective" under ACA?
You obviously don't know much about the panel of doctors who have to approve of said surgeries....based on profitability mind you.
He still hasn't answered where the money comes from for a government subsidy either.
Holy crap you're thick... It's irrelevant where the money comes from to subsidize premiums, it's the insurance company that's paying for the procedure.
So your saying its irrelevant that taxpayers are paying part of these peoples subsidy's? It doesn't matter if its one dollar or one million dollars its not relevant to take taxpayer money for needed operations yet alone unneeded ones.
Edit just because your the think one: I'm well aware the premiums and procedures are not the same damn thing. What are you gonna say when the government wants to subsidize the insurance company's because they can no longer pay for all the procedures they are now being forced to pay. I'm guessing something along the lines of what your saying now. "Irrelevant" Because its your kind that doesn't understand that if we let things like the ACA through bigger badder things are gonna follow right behind it.
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2014-08-25 23:14:09
lol, nice try, but wrong, as usual. Enjoyed your fear mongering tho.
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-25 23:22:23
If insurance companies go broke because they can't afford to pay out the claims that are owed to their customers under ACA, they deserve to. They obviously are incredibly mismanaged.
By Altimaomega 2014-08-25 23:36:38
If insurance companies go broke because they can't afford to pay out the claims that are owed to their customers under ACA, they deserve to. They obviously are incredibly mismanaged.
Hahahaa you really think the government is gonna let them go broke now? WOW just WOW.
By Jetackuu 2014-08-25 23:39:38
Richard M. Nixon was the one behind the original design of what is now the ACA.
And this matters why? A piece of crap legislation is a piece of crap legislation no matter who came up with it or when. Because when it fails, the liberals can deny it in entirity.
Never mind that not one single Republican voted for the legislation.
Jet is under the delusion that Republicans voted for the ACA. They did, in the 90's.
and they basically made it, go figure. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a piece of legislation that was started and enacted in less than a 2 year span, which first was brought into play in 2009, was available in the 1990s.
I'll let you think that one a little bit, and maybe you can understand your foolishness.
Because you couldn't be more wrong, on both counts.
By Jetackuu 2014-08-25 23:40:12
If insurance companies go broke because they can't afford to pay out the claims that are owed to their customers under ACA, they deserve to. They obviously are incredibly mismanaged. yuuup
edit: for clarification: same with dairy farms and epa/food regulations.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-25 23:40:29
If insurance companies go broke because they can't afford to pay out the claims that are owed to their customers under ACA, they deserve to. They obviously are incredibly mismanaged.
Hahahaa you really think the government is gonna let them go broke now? WOW just WOW.
Your irrational paranoia is starting to show, and your original premise is still wrong.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-08-25 23:44:24
Holy crap you're thick... It's irrelevant where the money comes from to subsidize premiums, it's the insurance company that's paying for the procedure.
Yes, the insurance company that's paying for the procedure WITH THE PREMIUMS. Holy freaking duh.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-25 23:48:03
They would be taking the money even if they deny the procedure.
By Altimaomega 2014-08-25 23:49:33
If insurance companies go broke because they can't afford to pay out the claims that are owed to their customers under ACA, they deserve to. They obviously are incredibly mismanaged. yuuup
edit: for clarification: same with dairy farms and epa/food regulations. If insurance companies go broke because they can't afford to pay out the claims that are owed to their customers under ACA, they deserve to. They obviously are incredibly mismanaged.
Hahahaa you really think the government is gonna let them go broke now? WOW just WOW.
Your irrational paranoia is starting to show, and your original premise is still wrong.
Glad you guys know what your talking about because I was starting to worry that the government didn't know what it was doing and just felt like forcing me to buy insurance because its the "right thing to do". Guess I'll just sit back and watch that national debt ticker keep on ticking upward and have another beer while watching some reality TV. Or is it anime cartoons.. idk...
By Altimaomega 2014-08-25 23:53:47
Holy crap you're thick... It's irrelevant where the money comes from to subsidize premiums, it's the insurance company that's paying for the procedure.
Yes, the insurance company that's paying for the procedure WITH THE PREMIUMS. Holy freaking duh.
Just let it go Ravael
At least I would hope he is trolling, can someone be that stupid?
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2014-08-25 23:56:42
Says the guy who never does anything other than troll, call names, and declare himself the winner.
Just let it go Ravael
At least I would hope he is trolling, can someone be that stupid?
Oh, the irony, its delicious. And still wrong about everything.
[+]
By Altimaomega 2014-08-26 00:01:35
Says the guy who never does anything other than troll, call names, and declare himself the winner.
Just let it go Ravael
At least I would hope he is trolling, can someone be that stupid?
Oh, the irony, its delicious. And still wrong about everything.
You mean.
By Jetackuu 2014-08-26 00:07:34
I love how the party of "fiscal responsibility" is so far deluded from the actual truth of what it means, they're caught hook line and sinker into the play that's being acted in front of them.
I understand the delusion, I really do, and that's what makes it sadder.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-08-26 00:12:12
I don't even care about having the surgery covered. I don't understand the medical necessity of it, but it's not my problem. I'm just trying to understand the mental disconnect that's required to not see that subsidized premiums = subsidized procedures. Maybe we need an actuary in here, but it would make sense that adding more procedures that have to be covered means that the insurance company would need more money to make up the difference, thus potentially affecting the premiums.
By Altimaomega 2014-08-26 00:26:40
I don't even care about having the surgery covered. I don't understand the medical necessity of it, but it's not my problem. I'm just trying to understand the mental disconnect that's required to not see that subsidized premiums = subsidized procedures. Maybe we need an actuary in here, but it would make sense that adding more procedures that have to be covered means that the insurance company would need more money to make up the difference, thus potentially affecting the premiums.
It does make since to anyone but a liberal.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-08-26 00:36:40
I've yet to meet anyone who's all for the ACA and have actually purchased any of the plans offered.
So far every advocate of the ACA when pressed will admit they didn't have to buy a new plan or even look at the plans, because they were able to keep their old insurance or don't have to worry about it (parents, government job, etc.).
All they tout is "Yay more people covered through Medicaid!" followed by all the usual political talking points.
Gold plan sucks, I didn't pay for it this month, it's worthless. Still waiting on that approval from 3 months ago.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-08-26 00:38:02
There's no mental disconnect because that's just how it works. It's misleading to argue that taxpayers (those that actually provide fund subsidies) directly pay for procedures when they don't. They pay for premiums that are then used at the discretion of the insurance company. It's indirect at best. Even the article seemed to be able to make this distinction.
Yes, I imagine the inclusion of GRS as part of coverage could possibly raise premiums, albeit minutely since it's a relatively rare surgery, but you don't get a say in what procedures are categorized as medically necessary. Doctors do.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-08-26 00:41:12
I agree with your statement Pleebo, but under no circumstances imaginable is gender reassignment surgery medically necessary.
edit: but that isn't the point of the argument, it's a distraction.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-26 00:44:53
It does make since to anyone but a liberal.
wat
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-08-26 00:47:37
There's no mental disconnect because that's just how it works. It's misleading to argue that taxpayers (those that actually provide fund subsidies) directly pay for procedures when they don't. They pay for premiums that are then used at the discretion of the insurance company. It's indirect at best. Even the article seemed to be able to make this distinction.
Yes, I imagine the inclusion of GRS as part of coverage could possibly raise premiums, albeit minutely since it's a relatively rare surgery, but you don't get a say in what procedures are categorized as medically necessary. Doctors do.
I never had an argument about the medical necessity. But if taxes go to premiums, and premiums get raised directly due to the addition of procedures, taxes go to procedures. Indirectly or not, it is what it is.
Let's look at an over-the-top, extreme case as an example. If it is deemed that a popular new 20 million dollar procedure is necessary and has to be covered by insurance, the result would likely be a skyrocket in premiums. If more tax money is required to subsidize those premiums, you'd have to be really dense to say that the subsidy isn't paying for the procedure when that's the cause of the increase.
By Jetackuu 2014-08-26 00:56:03
Taxes go to line corporate pockets, like anything else.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-26 00:58:35
There's no mental disconnect because that's just how it works. It's misleading to argue that taxpayers (those that actually provide fund subsidies) directly pay for procedures when they don't. They pay for premiums that are then used at the discretion of the insurance company. It's indirect at best. Even the article seemed to be able to make this distinction.
Yes, I imagine the inclusion of GRS as part of coverage could possibly raise premiums, albeit minutely since it's a relatively rare surgery, but you don't get a say in what procedures are categorized as medically necessary. Doctors do.
I never had an argument about the medical necessity. But if taxes go to premiums, and premiums get raised directly due to the addition of procedures, taxes go to procedures. Indirectly or not, it is what it is.
Let's look at an over-the-top, extreme case as an example. If it is deemed that a popular new 20 million dollar procedure is necessary and has to be covered by insurance, the result would likely be a skyrocket in premiums. If more tax money is required to subsidize those premiums, you'd have to be really dense to say that the subsidy isn't paying for the procedure when that's the cause of the increase.
If the procedure happened at the same rate as GRS, it likely wouldn't make a significant impact on premiums. Hard numbers are difficult to come by due to HIPAA, but it isn't common.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-08-26 01:03:21
There's no mental disconnect because that's just how it works. It's misleading to argue that taxpayers (those that actually provide fund subsidies) directly pay for procedures when they don't. They pay for premiums that are then used at the discretion of the insurance company. It's indirect at best. Even the article seemed to be able to make this distinction.
Yes, I imagine the inclusion of GRS as part of coverage could possibly raise premiums, albeit minutely since it's a relatively rare surgery, but you don't get a say in what procedures are categorized as medically necessary. Doctors do.
I never had an argument about the medical necessity. But if taxes go to premiums, and premiums get raised directly due to the addition of procedures, taxes go to procedures. Indirectly or not, it is what it is.
Let's look at an over-the-top, extreme case as an example. If it is deemed that a popular new 20 million dollar procedure is necessary and has to be covered by insurance, the result would likely be a skyrocket in premiums. If more tax money is required to subsidize those premiums, you'd have to be really dense to say that the subsidy isn't paying for the procedure when that's the cause of the increase.
If the procedure happened at the same rate as GRS, it likely wouldn't make a significant impact on premiums. Hard numbers are difficult to come by due to HIPAA, but it isn't common.
Talking around the point is almost the same thing as missing the point. There is one thing I'll bend on, though. If a controversial procedure doesn't affect premiums, nobody should care.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-26 01:10:38
There's no mental disconnect because that's just how it works. It's misleading to argue that taxpayers (those that actually provide fund subsidies) directly pay for procedures when they don't. They pay for premiums that are then used at the discretion of the insurance company. It's indirect at best. Even the article seemed to be able to make this distinction.
Yes, I imagine the inclusion of GRS as part of coverage could possibly raise premiums, albeit minutely since it's a relatively rare surgery, but you don't get a say in what procedures are categorized as medically necessary. Doctors do.
I never had an argument about the medical necessity. But if taxes go to premiums, and premiums get raised directly due to the addition of procedures, taxes go to procedures. Indirectly or not, it is what it is.
Let's look at an over-the-top, extreme case as an example. If it is deemed that a popular new 20 million dollar procedure is necessary and has to be covered by insurance, the result would likely be a skyrocket in premiums. If more tax money is required to subsidize those premiums, you'd have to be really dense to say that the subsidy isn't paying for the procedure when that's the cause of the increase.
If the procedure happened at the same rate as GRS, it likely wouldn't make a significant impact on premiums. Hard numbers are difficult to come by due to HIPAA, but it isn't common.
Talking around the point is almost the same thing as missing the point. There is one thing I'll bend on, though. If a controversial procedure doesn't affect premiums, nobody should care.
I wasn't really going around the point as much as pointing out the impact is minimal. There are plenty of other procedures that cost far more but are less controversial. It's easy to question a procedure that only benefits a very small number of people, but look at the focus on ALS recently. It is a terrible disease, but it only affects about 10,000 people in the US. If this exposure and fundraising produced a procedure that would be covered by ACA and cost 50K, it would be heralded as a miracle and nobody would question taxpayers paying for it. Apples and oranges, obviously, but it's perception that drives this outrage, not money.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-08-26 01:21:13
I wasn't really going around the point as much as pointing out the impact is minimal. There are plenty of other procedures that cost far more but are less controversial. It's easy to question a procedure that only benefits a very small number of people, but look at the focus on ALS recently. It is a terrible disease, but it only affects about 10,000 people in the US. If this exposure and fundraising produced a procedure that would be covered by ACA and cost 50K, it would be heralded as a miracle and nobody would question taxpayers paying for it. Apples and oranges, obviously, but it's perception that drives this outrage, not money.
I'm only arguing that saying that the procedures aren't subsidized is a load of crap. Subsidy money is used to pay for them, so they're subsidized. But the whole "perception" thing fuels both arguments here, because you have to try to convince yourself that that's not the case.
Should the procedure be subsidized? I don't care. I'm not a doctor.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-26 01:23:57
I wasn't really going around the point as much as pointing out the impact is minimal. There are plenty of other procedures that cost far more but are less controversial. It's easy to question a procedure that only benefits a very small number of people, but look at the focus on ALS recently. It is a terrible disease, but it only affects about 10,000 people in the US. If this exposure and fundraising produced a procedure that would be covered by ACA and cost 50K, it would be heralded as a miracle and nobody would question taxpayers paying for it. Apples and oranges, obviously, but it's perception that drives this outrage, not money.
I'm only arguing that saying that the procedures aren't subsidized is a load of crap. Subsidy money is used to pay for them, so they're subsidized. But the whole "perception" thing fuels both arguments here, because you have to try to convince yourself that that's not the case.
Should the procedure be subsidized? I don't care. I'm not a doctor.
If you buy tires from a shop, and the shop pays their employee with SOME of that money, and the employee spends it on hookers and blow, does that mean that you spent money on hookers and blow? That's essentially the substance of your claim.
[+]
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|
