(03-24-2017 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

Yea, I can see Thomas Jefferson now discussing things with the framers. "Say Ben, do you think we should require men to pay for maternity care?"

Really dude. I suppose all these women are getting pregnant without men?

no, but I guess all of these women are getting pregnant by all of these men?

Your buddy explains it to you. I don't expect you to agree with it because it makes sense...but still...this is why...

Quote:More broadly, Obamacare is dependent upon a maximum number of people buying into it to share the costs, spread the risk, and make it sustainable – hence the individual mandate that forces all Americans to buy health insurance or face a penalty. But eliminating “substandard” individual plans is another way to do this and – this is key – end policy and pricing discrimination.

Take the maternity insurance example.

If you didn’t include maternity coverage, insurers could charge women more than men for insurance, notes Jonathan Gruber, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who helped design the Massachusetts health plan and advised on Obamacare. Why should women be discriminated against just because they are the only ones, biologically speaking, who can bring children into the world?

Or what about mental health care? If you don’t include that, then insurers could charge the mentally ill more than the mentally healthy, and so on.

If you are going to end insurance discrimination, "then you need to have the mandate refer to a basic set of benefits that encompasses all aspects of medical care," he says.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC...y-coverage

Some more explanation for you...

Vox - This is what happens when maternity care isn’t an “essential” health benefit

I get that your single now...but what happens if you get married in a year or so and have kids and your wife is on your new Trump plan without maternity coverage???? Doesn't it make sense to pay a little more now and have it on all plans than to be expected to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars when junior arrives?

(03-24-2017 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some more explanation for you...

Vox - This is what happens when maternity care isn’t an “essential” health benefit

I get that your single now...but what happens if you get married in a year or so and have kids and your wife is on your new Trump plan without maternity coverage????

You and your wife take responsibility for yourselves, and purchase a plan that includes it. Just because it isn't mandated, doesn't mean it no longer exists. How did women ever manage to receive maternity care before 2010?

You know your argument is dumb, so I don't understand why you continue to make it.

(03-24-2017 02:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some more explanation for you...

Vox - This is what happens when maternity care isn’t an “essential” health benefit

I get that your single now...but what happens if you get married in a year or so and have kids and your wife is on your new Trump plan without maternity coverage????

You and your wife take responsibility for yourselves, and purchase a plan that includes it. Just because it isn't mandated, doesn't mean it no longer exists. How did women ever manage to receive maternity care before 2010?

You know your argument is dumb, so I don't understand why you continue to make it.

(03-24-2017 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some more explanation for you...

Vox - This is what happens when maternity care isn’t an “essential” health benefit

I get that your single now...but what happens if you get married in a year or so and have kids and your wife is on your new Trump plan without maternity coverage???? Doesn't it make sense to pay a little more now and have it on all plans than to be expected to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars when junior arrives?

Why is it that the left can't distinguish "mandate" from "provide"...

I mean seriously three of my four kids were born before Obama care and I had maternity coverage for all of them.

(03-24-2017 12:36 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  It's a win-win for Trump either way. If those stupid Republicans that are on the edge go with Rand Paul they will suffer in the elections when their time comes because it will be brought up. Trump has nothing to lose. He did what he had to do and if they don't vote for the bill he'll just sit back and let Oblundercare fizzle on its own. He won't come to its aid either, I can guarantee you that unless the Reps agree to do at that future time what they should do today.

Remember a very useful tidbit that no one brings up anymore. Health care is not a constitutional have-to. It's not guaranteed no where in the constitution.

It's not, but thinking it will be easy to take away without political backlash is foolish. In the end it doesn't really matter if it's in the constitution or not if enough voters demand it they'll get it.

(03-24-2017 01:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

Yea, I can see Thomas Jefferson now discussing things with the framers. "Say Ben, do you think we should require men to pay for maternity care?"

Really dude. I suppose all these women are getting pregnant without men?

Unless she was raped, only women can control their bodies. Men get no choice so men should not pay for it, be it abortion, health care, or child support. The choice is all on the woman, which is what they say they want. Let them have it.

boom.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-24-2017 02:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some more explanation for you...

Vox - This is what happens when maternity care isn’t an “essential” health benefit

I get that your single now...but what happens if you get married in a year or so and have kids and your wife is on your new Trump plan without maternity coverage???? Doesn't it make sense to pay a little more now and have it on all plans than to be expected to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars when junior arrives?

Why is it that the left can't distinguish "mandate" from "provide"...

I mean seriously three of my four kids were born before Obama care and I had maternity coverage for all of them.

Congratulations...but not everyone did.

And it's Ryan by a nose.

That was my vote.

(03-24-2017 02:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Just because it isn't mandated, doesn't mean it no longer exists.

But now we don't have to worry about that, because it remains mandated.

As it should be.

(03-24-2017 02:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  three of my four kids were born before Obama care and I had maternity coverage for all of them.

And now all healthcare insurance products will continue to have to provide it. As it should be.

(03-24-2017 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some more explanation for you...

Vox - This is what happens when maternity care isn’t an “essential” health benefit

I get that your single now...but what happens if you get married in a year or so and have kids and your wife is on your new Trump plan without maternity coverage???? Doesn't it make sense to pay a little more now and have it on all plans than to be expected to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars when junior arrives?

Why is it that the left can't distinguish "mandate" from "provide"...

I mean seriously three of my four kids were born before Obama care and I had maternity coverage for all of them.

Congratulations...but not everyone did.

But everyone was able to buy it, some decided not to...

(03-24-2017 03:16 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some more explanation for you...

Vox - This is what happens when maternity care isn’t an “essential” health benefit

I get that your single now...but what happens if you get married in a year or so and have kids and your wife is on your new Trump plan without maternity coverage???? Doesn't it make sense to pay a little more now and have it on all plans than to be expected to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars when junior arrives?

Why is it that the left can't distinguish "mandate" from "provide"...

I mean seriously three of my four kids were born before Obama care and I had maternity coverage for all of them.

Congratulations...but not everyone did.

But everyone was able to buy it, some decided not to...

Right...and I can buy a Ferrari if I decide to as well.

The more important point: we need to make the law so that Bull is forced to pay for it, regardless if he uses it or not.

That's the point that his kind are baffled by. They can't understand the concept of society. They just want to suck all the benefit out of it, while giving nothing back.

(03-24-2017 01:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd love to hear Tom explain why as a gay man he, in particular, should be subsidizing maternity care for all the "breeders".

Any other lefties wanna field this one? I'm dieing to hear somebody square LGBT equality and forcing them all to pay for maternity care. Particularly gay men.

That's an easy one, GTS. But I can see how it's over your head, as you try to shape your world into an extremist anti-society framework.

Ans: all members of society need to pay into the benefit of society.

That's it.

(03-24-2017 03:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ans: all members of society need to pay into the benefit of society.

This isn't the case though. It's all members of society paying into the benefit of SOME of society. Specifically .... less than half. Unless they're teaching people up there in the tundra of Minnesota that everybody has a vag and is capable of giving birth now.

AGAIN - and in exactly the same way - your worldview has failed you.


To suggest that all non-women members of society receive zero benefit from women bearing children???? I mean, good god. Asinine is just a word.

so strange. I don't see this as a win for anybody.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-24-2017 04:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  so strange. I don't see this as a win for anybody.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

It's a win for the Dems.