I Say, Let Any Right-Winger Opt Out of the Affordable Care Act

And still none of you will answer the simple question I posed in the OP. Very telling. You want to get even more for free than you red states already get. Takers!

 

Are you really this disingenuous? The lady in the example you provided had a supplemental healthcare policy designed to work in conjunction with a major policy for the purpose of reducing front end out of pocket costs (deductibles and co-pays). Although you consider these types of policies to be junk – they will remain an available product under ObamaCare. Don’t worry we’ll still be given the AFLAC trivia question this Saturday during the SEC Game of the Week. They're still in business.

 

I read nothing that called this "supplemental". Would you like to read the entire article? I usually don't bother posting the whole text because I find Right-wingers do not like to read.
I don't know where you are getting your information but I got this from Consumer Reports Online. What is your source?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/03/junk-health-insurance/index.htm

 

Again...cowards! What are you afraid to admit?

And still none of you will answer the simple question I posed in the OP. Very telling. You want to get even more for free than you red states already get. Takers!

 

Actually I can't, I don't need a policy that covers many of the thing that the ACA requires, that's why my premiums have gone up so much, according tp the insurance broker. I really wish I could be allowed the courtesy of determining for myself what is a junk policy

 

Name a health insurance policy where you can pick and choose just the specific things you want to be covered for. Insurance simply doesn't work that way. You can buy different levels of coverage but picking and choosing what each level will and will not cover isn't an option. Don't confuse the two. It's pooled risk. Some woman isn't going to want to be covered for prostate cancer and I'm sure you don't want to have ovarian cancer covered assuming you are male. This isn't rocket science. Insurance covers high risk people and low risk people both so that their liability is spread across policy holders. How did you think any insurance policy worked?

 

Minor Medical or supplemental what is the difference? Neither is classified as a major medical policy and cannot be marketed or promoted as such. I thought we were discussing what you classified as junk policies that are being cancelled. These (Big Mac Plans) are not the policies being due to the fact Obama gave them a waiver.

 

I would LOVE to opt out of Obamacare...and Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Income Tax, etc.

Let's return to apportionment of taxes among the Several States. In other words, people pay taxes to their state and the state pays taxes to the Federal Government...apportioned by population.

People are then free to choose to live in the state that most closely approximates their social values. That's how the original Constitution reads.

REPEAL the 16th Amendment!!!

 

You have decided it's a baby. Others don't share your view. You can decide for yourself. When you get pregnant, I'm sure you'll carry it to term. But you have no right to make that decision for anyone else.

 

Really? It's not a baby in the 3rd trimester? Why are people prosecuted when their actions lead to the death of babies in the womb?

 

What moron joe calls a "junk" policy, BO calls a Bronze plan. And these Bronze plans are what BO uses to sell the "affordable" piece of this whole scam. The problem is that these Bronze plans now cost twice as much since BO got involved in making our healthcare decisions.

 

The fact that people are prosecuted for something doesn't mean that there is justification for prosecuting them.

 

The fact that it's a law would indicate the "judgement" you mentioned is not solely mine though, wouldn't you agree?

 

If you had a brain, you'd play with it.

The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates vie for the upper hand in this contentious issue. In recent years, states have expanded this debate to include the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. In some states, legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.

 

The only time someone has the right to make a decision for anyone else is when anyone else is purchasing health insurance?

 

Stage #1: Cells with DNA unique from the Mother's begin to divide.
Stage #2: The child is viable outside the womb should that occur.
Stage #3: The child is alive and physically separates from the Mother.

In some societies, a live birth isn't registered until the 100th day after birth. In other societies, ultrasounds are illegal, because female babies are aborted in favor or male babies. Each society makes their own rules.

In American society, babies that result from full or premature births (Stage #3) have full legal rights as a unique person.

Similarly, life clearly begins in Stage #1. However, whether or not that can be considered a "unique person" in legal terms is under debate. Clearly, the Mother's health and well-being has priority over the baby in Stage #1. The definition of "health and well-being" is the key to that discussion.

The question is...What legal rights does a baby have that can survive outside the Mother's body, but hasn't yet been delivered (Stage #2)? The Left would argue that the baby has no rights until born and the Right would argue that a baby has full legal rights as a unique person if they are viable outside of the womb.

Even those that argue for a woman's right to an abortion, argue just as strenuously for prenatal care for unborn babies that the Mother intends to deliver at full term. That suggests that even an unborn, yet viable baby has some level of human rights that must be respected...and only denied in the event of a life threatening condition to the Mother.

Reasonable people (both Liberal and Conservative) can agree that respect for a baby's human rights at any particular stage should consider the Mother's condition, but be independent of the Mother's "intentions".

 

Cut & paste from Wikipedia?

 

You're thinking of Rand Paul.

 

If you don't even know the difference between a mini-med and a supplemental insurance plan you really don't belong in this conversation.

 

View attachment 2101