General Discussion

Capt. Obvious

(9,002 posts)

15. And then all insurance will be based in Delaware

Reply to raps (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 09:08 AM

Jun 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wow... 48% of Dems want Obamacare all or part overturned? [View all] Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2012 OP

Many people want the give-away to private insurance companies Fawke Em Jun 2012 #1

Yes, people should remember that number includes "or in part" JHB Jun 2012 #3

Propaganda is effective liberal N proud Jun 2012 #2

Ah, so anybody who is against a mandated monopoly is a propaganda victim? MadHound Jun 2012 #5

If you don't have the mandate, who pays for the people who doc03 Jun 2012 #17

Do you think that it is right, legal and just MadHound Jun 2012 #28

Fine if someone doesn't want health insurance and doc03 Jun 2012 #35

How is it different than the laws that say you have to have car insurance. Just asking. nt Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2012 #56

Because no one is required by law to have a car. Angleae Jun 2012 #72

But you do have a living body.. sendero Jun 2012 #73

That is not the typical objection from the public. If it was, I could respect that. nt stevenleser Jun 2012 #49

Some Democrats want everything or nothing, so it will most likely be back to nothing. BlueCaliDem Jun 2012 #4

No, it's more that many Democrats balance the good with the bad, MadHound Jun 2012 #6

Yep. Back to nothing is better. eom BlueCaliDem Jun 2012 #50

Seven states have already gotten exemptions for MLR, and more are applying eridani Jun 2012 #9

As of Dec. 2011, the HHS has rejected waivers for four states already. BlueCaliDem Jun 2012 #52

You understand that the waivers are temporary, right? Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #55

Sure. They can get new waivers after the old ones expire eridani Jun 2012 #60

Actually you demonstrate you know nothing about the waiver process. Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #63

Why not give me an example of a state that has tried regulation by MLR eridani Jun 2012 #67

Why not deal with the actual waiver process instead of spreading BS about it? n/t Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #68

Bottom line--regulating by MLR does not control costs, period. n/t eridani Jun 2012 #69

If that was the only thing going on here, you might have a point. Now, the waiver process. Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #70

Gergen can't be that naive FBaggins Jun 2012 #7

Bullshit ProSense Jun 2012 #8

This is not different from what the OP said eridani Jun 2012 #11

Nonsense ProSense Jun 2012 #12

LOL DesMoinesDem Jun 2012 #22

Yeah, ProSense Jun 2012 #25

Thanks for the welcome. DesMoinesDem Jun 2012 #29

The Link-Drone gets another civilian Capt. Obvious Jun 2012 #31

My bad ProSense Jun 2012 #40

Thanks again Capt. Obvious Jun 2012 #41

Good point. thanks. let me change. nt Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2012 #58

Yes it is, 48% do NOT want the WHOLE law overturned the OP doesn't qaulify uponit7771 Jun 2012 #34

The part about buying insurance or being penalized is ridiculous qanda Jun 2012 #10

Just allow insurance to be sold across state lines raps Jun 2012 #13

Ding ding ding - we have a winner! DinahMoeHum Jun 2012 #14

And then all insurance will be based in Delaware Capt. Obvious Jun 2012 #15

Yep. GoCubsGo Jun 2012 #19

+1, conservatives are so uninformed on a number of issues it's flooring uponit7771 Jun 2012 #37

They're one step ahead. They will move to Delaware and still not lower prices. FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #20

They wrote the legislation. You bet they can find loopholes. kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #53

You don't know much about the history of credit cards, do you? jeff47 Jun 2012 #23

Why haven't other insurers (i.e. auto) done that? joeglow3 Jun 2012 #24

For auto, you usually aren't actually buying it across state lines jeff47 Jun 2012 #26

state laws raps Jun 2012 #27

True, but everyone can enter the state if they meet those requirements joeglow3 Jun 2012 #47

Because what would happen in reality is just the opposite of what you claim. Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #39

Race to the bottom. The Link Jun 2012 #44

Repuke talking point bullshit eridani Jun 2012 #61

Since when is 48% a plurality? The 52% that don't want doc03 Jun 2012 #16

I know a lot of Democrats jpbollma Jun 2012 #18

The survey says only 42% of Democrats think SCOTUS should keep the whole law. Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #57

I'm ambivalent Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #21

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law and the constitution. Skinner Jun 2012 #30

True. It would be disconcerting if things like polls and protests could sway judges. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #51

I want single payer... ileus Jun 2012 #32

I think many of us, deep down, understood that mandatory for-profit insurance was a Faustian deal Romulox Jun 2012 #33

It's not mandatory for-profit Orangepeel Jun 2012 #46

There is no provision in the US Constitution that allows for forced purchases--but only from Romulox Jun 2012 #48

Well said, and not hard to understand. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2012 #59

I think that's a misleading number RZM Jun 2012 #36

Lots of people think "it's a bad idea and it shouldn't be that way" = "unconstitutional" Orangepeel Jun 2012 #38

The Court has to go by the law treestar Jun 2012 #42

Thank you FoxNews and others for grievously misleading their viewers librechik Jun 2012 #43

Medicare for everyone is the only solution!! B Calm Jun 2012 #45

That's not a solution for the stockholders who own stock in the health-care companies. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #54

"the supreme court has traditionally been viewed as the least partisan..." AJTheMan Jun 2012 #62

remember that Obamacare TheFarseer Jun 2012 #64

most profound post of all. ! of course Obama knows the same...wonder if even he is Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2012 #66

If only they had listened. We tried to tell them but were attacked and vilified and the sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #65

Totally agree, that's exactly the way I see it too. nt Raine Jun 2012 #71