haleakala, that's true - but there's more to it.
Insurance is a contract to pay, and the says what it will pay for, and what it won't. If you get treated for something your insurance won't pay for, it won't pay.
Trouble is, most people like "america_wants_change" believe insurance should pay for "everything" and STILL be "affordable". People like them are stuck in a dream they can't wake up from.
Question: If the physician prescribes tap water, is the insurance company obliged to pay for it?
"insurers can charge me anything they want"
You seem to forget that insurance rates are regulated by your state department of insurance.
leroid, Where are you getting your information?
I can't name one state Aetna has withdrawn from - can you?
The important issue is not H1's. The important issue is part-time vs full time.
Full time jobs are evaporating in this country. That's because ObamaCare is killing full time jobs.
Who is more willing to work part time should be your question.
And if I were you I would be very afraid. Oh, I forgot, it's obvious you already are.
Well, no I don't and I don't even know where YOU are heading.
I cant' even tell if you comprehend what an "average" is.
(btw, by the illogic you apparently believe in, the "average" American has one ovary and one testicle.)
"I will not answer you again"
Since you have not "answered" me even once, I (and probably everyone else) will be pleased not to see any more of your silly, pontificating non-responses.
All I asked you is to rationalize your illogical rush to paint the other poster as biased. You offered no specifics to support your view. Instead you stated you "assumed" the other poster is biased. That conclusion does not follow from what the other poster actually said, and is therefore a non-sequitur. In fact, by your doggedly unsupported assumption about the other poster you may have revealed one of your own biases.
There's irony in that.
Finally, you seem not to have figured this out either: I am not interested in the other poster's opinions about Obamacare - nor am I interested in yours. I was temporarily interested only in your illogic - but now I'm bored with you.
Have a good day.
Your opinion about the other poster does not logically follow from anything the other poster has stated. That's why your conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Instead, as you yourself say, "I can only assume."
. . . which is what I'm saying. You are only assuming.
All you've expressed is your own unexplained assumptions about the other poster's motivations and beliefs.
Or - maybe - you can supply specifics that justify your assumption. So far, you have not done so.
For the third time, I ask you for specifics.
lookingfor, the writer of the article you linked says Congress is not exempted, but the law itself is not so clear on that point.
The article includes a section of the law. That section says that there are not one, but two insurance options for members of Congress. One option is to buy insurance from the Exchanges. The other, according to the article, is insurance that is “created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)”
That second option could be anything Congress may decide for itself by amending ACA.
Doesn't the presence of this second option mean that Congress will not necessarily have to buy from the Exchanges?
"Just tell the seniors they CAN'T HAVE IT."
Here's a much better idea. Since you're the one eating up all the health care dollars with your fancy $15,000 helicopter rides, Obama needs to tell you that YOU can't have it.
thinkhouse, why wouldn't any intelligent person think your little stories are all lies? Otherwise you would post links to the stories.
"Thou shalt not bare false witness".
Yeah, unless you also bare your ass when posting - as you do, over and over.
I said to doctors_with_h1n1
"Doctors provide care, . . . doctor"
And passportnc replied
"we must assume that this is your opinion"
No need to assume. That is definitely my opinion.
Anyone have a different opinion? I'd like to hear it.