Jump to content

The "Affordable" healthcare act


stevenash

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, new tobie said:

oh thats right there never was a problem as long as the insurance companies charge more for the elderly and sick and deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. And still issue rate hikes. Kinda like state farm dropping peoples coverage after the hurricane and raising rates.

Not to worry...the fed gov will "always" protect you from the big bad private companies.

I won't waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, new tobie said:

oh thats right there never was a problem as long as the insurance companies charge more for the elderly and sick and deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. And still issue rate hikes. Kinda like state farm dropping peoples coverage after the hurricane and raising rates.

State Farm tried to leave Texas but Texas said oh no you ain't. What a great state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not to worry...the fed gov will "always" protect you from the big bad private companies.

I won't waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

an insurance company doesn't really want to pay anything out, just to collect. who is happy about their home owners are car insurance rates. let me know maybe I need a new insurance company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Tobie is deflecting. All insurance is high, always has been. Guess what contributed to the most recent rise? You got it right the first time.

What really drives insurance even higher is the small fender benders that people claim frivolous injuries. In mine, the air bags didn't deploy and all that happened to my truck was transfer paint. Geico paid instead of going to court. I told them there was no way that guy got hurt. My 93 year old mother could have been in that truck without a seatbelt on and she would not have been injured at all. I hope he enjoys the money. Meanwhile, your insurance went up because of that RAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, new tobie said:

an insurance company doesn't really want to pay anything out, just to collect. who is happy about their home owners are car insurance rates. let me know maybe I need a new insurance company.

Those monsters...trying to make a profit.

You do know, however, that insurance companies pay out all the time.

Insurance costs money...hard working taxpayers simply deal with it...been paying all my adult life...it's part of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, baddog said:

New Tobie is deflecting. All insurance is high, always has been. Guess what contributed to the most recent rise? You got it right the first time.

What really drives insurance even higher is the small fender benders that people claim frivolous injuries. In mine, the air bags didn't deploy and all that happened to my truck was transfer paint. Geico paid instead of going to court. I told them there was no way that guy got hurt. My 93 year old mother could have been in that truck without a seatbelt on and she would not have been injured at all. I hope he enjoys the money. Meanwhile, your insurance went up because of that RAT.

I'm thinking guys like "strongarm" and "hammer" have a lot to do with rising insurance costs...ambulance chasing low lifes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, new tobie said:

No I think that the good company people at state farm are taking advantage of me, and the gov mint say I got to have car insurance

If the insurance companies are taking advantage of people by stealing their money, why don't you open your own insurance company and charge a fair price. Instead of running your mouth complaining, you have every opportunity in this great country to solve the problem yourself instead of relying on the government to solve your problems. Which path will you choose...working on a solution yourself or whining to the government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

If the insurance companies are taking advantage of people by stealing their money, why don't you open your own insurance company and charge a fair price. Instead of running your mouth complaining, you have every opportunity in this great country to solve the problem yourself instead of relying on the government to solve your problems. Which path will you choose...working on a solution yourself or whining to the government?

Next step- Auto and home insurance is a right.    We need the govt to regulate prices and dictate the profits that the insurance companies can make.  We need the auto/home insurance version of Obama care- hope and change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...