Obamacare

[sgreger1]

Snupy, let me shorten that tripple spam post re: republicans suck for you:


Republicans fail because: Conservatives say one thing that Americans believe in, then once in power, they do the exact opposite. They don't close the borders, they don't limit or reduce government, they don't protect freedom or personal liberties, they don't reduce the deficit etc etc. Republicans are still trying to harness the crazy bible belt vote by shouting nonsense like jesus should be included in making legislation. They are stupid for this, because while that may have worked 100 years ago, that bible belt is shrinking and just rallying the crazies all the time will not provide enough votes to get elected. Meanwhile, the more moderate, right of center people choose not to vote for the republicans they normally would have because again the party seems to only want to cater to the fringe right.



But like the special ed class at your local high school, republicans stick together in their group and will not budge or learn new things. This is bad for democrats because they are going to have to pull out every stop to get legislation though, since every republican will be a "nay" vote on everything that comes forward. This will cause dems to play dirty like they have been and that will make them look bad. Then the dems extend the patriot act, grow the wars and add to the deficit, after years of protesting those very same things.

Like gang violence, it's better for the community as a whole to just let the two sides kill each other.

[truthwolf1]

oppression is for our own good

[redheadedmax]

It seems to me that if the government can mandate that I purchase a product from a private company simply because I exist they can mandate anything. What's next?

Ok. Let's go with that. Americans should have the right to CHOOSE whether to purchase health insurance or not. My grandmother had that choice. She CHOSE not to buy health insurance. She inadvertently ended up burning her behind sitting on a heater. She was in the hospital for 8-9 months. The final bill was $250,000, which she couldn't pay, because she CHOSE to exercise her right to NOT buy health insurance. (She didn't have the money anyway.)

Any clue who ended up paying her health care bill? How many others like her have the hospitals treated? Do we just let those expenses keep spiralling out of control and increasing the deficit? Do we deny care to those who can't afford and leave them to die/let them eat cake?

So, mandated payment to a third party paper shuffler is the answer?

Awesome!

[sgreger1]

It's funny how supporters will use the excuse "Well you already pay for other people's care indirectly, so we are now just going to mandate that you continue doing it as part of the "reform" process"

Yes, meaningful reform indeed.

They pulled the same thing with the patriot act. They yelled for years about how bad it was, so that they could get into power, and now that they are the ones making the rules, they expand the patriot act and say "but.. but republicans did it. You were already doing it so what's the big deal".

1) Complain someone is doing something
2) Use that to get into power
3) Do the exact same thing that you were just complaining about
4) Blame it on the last guy
5) ???
5) Profit


I find you highly intelligent snupy, you and Justin bring me back to earth on a daily basis. But you are doing the same BS the republican do, using fake arguments as an explanation for why your party is running amok.

Problem: People end up paying for other people's health care costs
Solution: Mandate that everyone pays for other people's health care costs

Retarded: Call the above process historical reform that is equally as historic as passing civil rights legislation.

[snupy]

So, mandated payment to a third party paper shuffler is the answer?

Awesome!

Did mandated payments to third party paper shufflers work in the case of uninsured motorists once car insurance became mandatory? If that didn't work, what idea would work instead and when was that idea introduced or discussed when we had a Republican president from 2000-2008?

[snupy]

It's funny how supporters will use the excuse "Well you already pay for other people's care indirectly, so we are now just going to mandate that you continue doing it as part of the "reform" process"

BOTH parties introduced the EXACT SAME IDEAS with respect to health care reforms, whether it was Obamacare, Romneycare or HeritageFoundationCare in the early 90s. (Oh hell, might as well add McCain care to that list in 2008.)

They pulled the same thing with the patriot act. They yelled for years about how bad it was,

Did you forget the DEMS voted FOR the Patriot Act?

I find you highly intelligent snupy, you and Justin bring me back to earth on a daily basis. But you are doing the same BS the republican do, using fake arguments as an explanation for why your party is running amok.

HAHAHA! I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican either. How many times must I type 'both parties exist to serve the will of the aristocrats, therefore NEITHER represent my interests,' before you finally GET IT? You never cease to amaze me with your assumptions sgreger1.

Problem: People end up paying for other people's health care costs

We already have been for some time. That's a large part of the reason costs have been spiralling out of control. Those who CAN pay have been overcharged to cover for those who CAN'T pay.

Solution: Mandate that everyone pays for other people's health care costs

It worked for car insurance, did it not?

Retarded: Call the above process historical reform that is equally as historic as passing civil rights legislation.

It IS historic, because no president has EVER been able to make it happen until now. Your claims it represents 'government run amok' are utterly LAUGHABLE, because these are the SAME reforms suggested by the Heritage Foundation in the early 90s, as well as RomneyCare, ie, ideas backed by Republicans previously.

[snupy]

Republicans fail because: Conservatives say one thing that Americans believe in, then once in power, they do the exact opposite.

But Dems do the same. I don't believe for one minute we are leaving Iraq, regardless of what Obama said during the campaign.

They don't close the borders,

The aristocrats, I mean business, likes cheap labor. I still believe the way out is to get the illegals documented. If they all have state IDs, we know where they live, which makes it MUCH easier to collect taxes.

they don't limit or reduce government,

I don't even believe that is possible, or even desirable. Small business owes the treasury something like $58 billion in delinquent taxes. How do we get that money paid into the treasury and thus onto the government balance sheet if we cut staff/expenses necessary to collect it? And I WANT to see people employed enforcing the Do Not Call List. I don't even want to know how much my cell phone would be if the 'free market' were allowed to decide my cell phone could be telemarketed 24/7 at the will of the aristocrats. I want the FTC to go after companies that threaten to ruin my credit by violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, most especially when I have receipts which prove I paid my bill and my credit score is well above 750. And those are just a few examples I can recall at the moment.

they don't protect freedom or personal liberties,

That depends on your net worth.

Republicans are still trying to harness the crazy bible belt vote by shouting nonsense like jesus should be included in making legislation. They are stupid for this, because while that may have worked 100 years ago, that bible belt is shrinking and just rallying the crazies all the time will not provide enough votes to get elected. Meanwhile, the more moderate, right of center people choose not to vote for the republicans they normally would have because again the party seems to only want to cater to the fringe right.

The republicans lost the center/moderates when they went off the deep end about Obama being a Marxist or socialist and claiming government run healthcare would kill grandma. The Marxist/socialist claims couldn't stick because none on the far left (as opposed to left of center) or on the far right (as opposed to right of center) could even run for the office of the president, because the aristocrats would not fund them in either case. The 'killing grandma' claims were totally unbelievable due to their hysterical nature. If one is going to lie, the lie should at least be believable. If any government ever did suggest granny should be kiilled to save health care costs, you would see far more than a million man march on Washington, with pitchforks and nooses in hand.

I don't know what in the world the Republicans were thinking when they chose to resort to apocalyptic hysterics instead of BELIEVABLE lies. As much as we make jokes about how dumb the US public is, we aren't dumb enough to fall for lies that blatant.

But like the special ed class at your local high school, republicans stick together in their group and will not budge or learn new things. This is bad for democrats

Actually, it's bad for Republicans. It's REALLY bad for Republicans. The Republicans have been invited into the health care negotiation process for well over a year and have refused to participate, leaving the Dems to push it through on their own. This is a win for the Dems, because it was the centerpiece of Obama's campaign. There is a reason Obama stated, 'This is what change looks like,' after the legislation had passed. Point, set and match to Obama and the Dems. He delivered on at least one of his promises of 'change you can believe in.'

Additionally, can you see the political ads for the mid-terms?

"Do you really want Mr. or Mrs. Republican to represent you, when they WANTED the insurance companies to have the legal right to deny your baby health insurance due to pre-existing conditions? WON'T YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN IN THE VOTING BOOTH?"

And when you consider someone like Romney, who voted for very similar legislation in his own home state, but refused to vote for it on the national level, we can see how the Republicans have earned the label 'the party of NO.' It does appear they are being obstructionist, just to be obstructionist, with no valid reasons behind the obstructions.

because they are going to have to pull out every stop to get legislation though, since every republican will be a "nay" vote on everything that comes forward.

What 'stops' did the Dems have to pull out to get this passed? The vote was planned for Sunday. They voted on Sunday. It passed on Sunday. There were no upsets here. And the Dems will get the credit for eliminating:

1. health care rationing due to pre-existing conditions
2. health care rationing due to policy recission (which a jury in one of the most conservative of states likewise already rejected)
3. lifetime limit on caps

And who pushed this through? The Dems. And who said no at every opportunity? The Republicans. You think there won't be consequences?

This will cause dems to play dirty like they have been and that will make them look bad.

They've no need to play dirty when they had the votes going in, even without the Republicans. Why did they have the votes going in? Oh, that's right. The voters booted an overwhelming majority of Republicans OUT in the last election. That's what this legislation really is about. The Bush backlash in the last election. Yet the Republicans were totally fine with continuing health care rationing by pre-existing condition and policy recission, yet you claim this leaves the Dems looking bad when they got legislation to overcome those very things?

Then the dems extend the patriot act,

No surprise there, considering they voted it in to begin with.

grow the wars

No surprise there, considering they voted them in to begin with.

and add to the deficit,

That would have happened no matter who had become president. Skipping the stimulus would have lead to depression, instead of deep recession, and would have been economic suicide on the entire economy. The Austrian School is a nice economic fantasy, but there are good reasons it is considered heterodox and not orthodox, although the aristocrats certainly love that particular fantasy, no doubt, and for quite obvious reasons. Regardless, the Austrian School will never be taken seriously anyway, until and unless somebody can actually produce some sort of empirical data to back up the claims it offers. Our economists know all too well what happens when you choose to pay down a deficit in the midst of a recession. Check the GDP for the last three quarters, then get back to me on whether the stimulus worked or not. And thank Keynes (orthodox), not the Austrian School (heterodox & lacking data to validate it), for what you find.

Like gang violence, it's better for the community as a whole to just let the two sides kill each other.

The Republicans hung themselves with apocalyptic hysterics. The Dems didn't have anything to do with that and don't have to kill anybody or any party. The passage of the health care legislation proves the Dems don't need the Republicans, although that is really due to the last elections more than anything else. That's not to say this won't change. That depends on the mid-terms, which looks like a crapshoot to me presently, but mostly because it's too early to see how the Tea Party will shake out as a political force. They've yet to even begin to purge the more extremist/racist fringe from their numbers, although they most certainly have taken steps to distinguish and separate themselves from the Republicans.

America is CENTRIST. The Republicans have been listening to radio and TV ENTERTAINERS, who played to the FAR right, instead of the right of center. (Dont' take my word for it. Check Frum, Will & Noonan) It didn't work. End of story. To make it worse, the Tea Partiers have the power to split the Republican vote, which is the double whammy on top of playing to the far right. The Tea Partiers have the potential to DIVIDE the Republican votes in the mid-term and some studies have shown Republican options placing THIRD if the choice is between Republican, Dem or Tea Party.

[snupy]

oppression is for our own good

Oh I am so OPPRESSED now that I can't be denied health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. I am so OPPRESSED now that my health insurance policy can no longer be rescinded simply because I filed a claim.

[redheadedmax]

Did mandated payments to third party paper shufflers work in the case of uninsured motorists once car insurance became mandatory?

I Guess not, since now insurance companies sell auto insurance to protect against uninsured motorists. :lol:

http://www.allstate.com/auto-insuran...insurance.aspx

If that didn't work, what idea would work instead and when was that idea introduced or discussed when we had a Republican president from 2000-2008?

It seems you're obsessed with Republicans... I have no idea why. :shock:

The simple fact is Obama just gave you what the stereotypical big business Republican would have delivered regardless- a hand out to corporate fat-cats.

If you want something that works you and those who think as you do have always been free to go off and form an insurance co-op or collective or something, instead of getting all worked up about it after it became a political priority for a politician who could really care less about you. They had health insurance co-ops back in 1930s and 1940s and they to this day still have dairy and electrical co-ops in rural America.

There's really no need to make those of us who don't want to participate criminals. Seriously.

[sgreger1]

[quote="snupy"]

BOTH parties introduced the EXACT SAME IDEAS with respect to health care reforms, whether it was Obamacare, Romneycare or HeritageFoundationCare in the early 90s. (Oh hell, might as well add McCain care to that list in 2008.)

No shit, that's why I said they are all hypocrites. However, I feel that for the most part this bill is at least a step in the right direction.

Did you forget the DEMS voted FOR the Patriot Act?

Of course! But that is EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING, that they pretend to hate it and cite something as a problem, untill they get into office, at which point they sell you the same thing the last guy sold you as the solution.

Are you trying to claim the democrats as a whole have been fully supportive of the patriot act for the last several years, and have not been protesting it's overbearing abuse of American privacy rights?

HAHAHA! I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican either. How many times must I type both parties exist to serve the will of the aristocrats, therefore NEITHER represent my interests, before you finally GET IT? You never cease to amaze me with your assumptions sgreger1.

Funny, because that's what I always say, and yet you rail against me like I am some kind of right wing wacko. In this very post you are citing shit the heritage foundation said, as though I were a conservative and therefore should relate to it. I don't care what the heritage foundation or anyone else says. You do equally as much "assuming" as anyone else here.

We already have been for some time. That's a large part of the reason costs have been spiralling out of control. Those who CAN pay have been overcharged to cover for those who CAN'T pay.

Thanks for repeating what I just said, word for word. No shit that's what's been happening. I said that X is already happening, so how can you mandate that X continue to happen and call it change? It's just the same old system, except you are mandated to support the failing system.

It worked for car insurance, did it not?

First of all, NO IT DID NOT. They claimed that once everyone bought into car insurance that the premiums would lower, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT, and they continue to go up. But this is NOT car insurance. You should be smart enough to know the difference. If I want to drive a car, I buy a car, as part of the agreement of driving it on public roads, I must have insurance. That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying that just because I was born on American soil, I have to buy a certain companies product.

Do you really think this healthcare thing is in any way like car insurance?

It IS historic, because no president has EVER been able to make it happen until now. Your claims it represents 'government run amok' are utterly LAUGHABLE, because these are the SAME reforms suggested by the Heritage Foundation in the early 90s, as well as RomneyCare, both of which were backed by conservative Republicans.

Why are you citing republicans as though that makes it more legit? I thought we both agreed that the republicans are just as corrupt as the next guy. How about this, F*ck Romney, F*ck the heritage foundation, and F*ck anyone who wants to FORCE me to buy something just for being alive. I don't care if it's corrupt dems or corrupt reps, I oppose it either way.

And saying it's historic just because no one was able to do it in the past doesn't make sense. I guess Bush's passing of the patriot act was "historic" because no one was able to strip us of that many freedoms before. Yay for historicalness, yaaaaay.

[snupy]

I Guess not, since now insurance companies sell auto insurance to protect against uninsured motorists. :lol:

http://www.allstate.com/auto-insuran...insurance.aspx

I don't have that insurance, nor is it required. Maybe you should switch to State Farm? LOL!

The simple fact is Obama just gave you what the stereotypical big business Republican would have delivered regardless- a hand out to corporate fat-cats.

Surely you don't mean to suggest it's business as usual in Washington, do you?

I notice you failed to offer any other solution to the healthcare issues. Should I take that to mean you personally have no ideas, or should I take that to mean healthcare rationing by pre-existing condition or policy recission wasn't on the radar from 2000-2008?

If you want something that works you and those who think as you do have always been free to go off and form an insurance co-op or collective or something,

1. The bar is exceedingly high to do something like that. Since I am not an aristocrat, I have neither the money nor the connections to do such.

2. Even if I could acheive it, it would not solve the health care issue on a national level.

instead of getting all worked up about it after it became a political priority for a politician who could really care less about you.,

It's not about me and never has been. Medical costs are exploding on the national level. Many lack the money to pay those costs, which is leaving a huge hole in the federal budget, as well as a huge hole for medical corporations, such as those that run hospitals. Additionally, the baby boomer generation is aging, which is a huge chunk of the population which will require MORE health care expenditures as they age. We have known this was coming for years. Do you not remember Perot and his charts warning of this years ago? The only question remaining is do we let these holes get bigger or look for solutions to solve it?

What are your ideas to solve it, given you think the present solutions are so horrible?

There's really no need to make those of us who don't want to participate criminals. Seriously.

If you don't want to participate you pay a fine, which doesn't make you a criminal. I myself will have to decide whether to buy in or pay the fine. Either way, I won't be a criminal and neither will you. The present concern is many won't participate because the fines will be cheaper than buying in.

[sgreger1]

The Republicans hung themselves with apocalyptic hysterics. The Dems didn't have anything to do with that and don't have to kill anybody or any party. The passage of the health care legislation proves the Dems don't need the Republicans, although that is really due to the last elections more than anything else. That's not to say this won't change. That depends on the mid-terms, which looks like a crapshoot to me presently, but mostly because it's too early to see how the Tea Party will shake out as a political force. They've yet to even begin to purge the more extremist/racist fringe from their numbers, although they most certainly have taken steps to distinguish and separate themselves from the Republicans.

Lol, you are fooling yourself snupy. With all due respect, every poll and indicator points to dems loosing seats in november. I think the republicans screwed themselves in many ways, but they will still pick up the seat, and then we can enjoy another 6 years of fighting with them. This is all speculation, so we will see in november, but I maintain that the dems WILL lose some seats.

America is CENTRIST. The Republicans have been listening to radio and TV ENTERTAINERS, who played to the FAR right, instead of the right of center. (Dont' take my word for it. Check Frum, Will & Noonan) It didn't work. End of story. To make it worse, the Tea Partiers have the power to split the Republican vote, which is the double whammy on top of playing to the far right. The Tea Partiers have the potential to DIVIDE the Republican votes in the mid-term and some studies have shown Republican options placing THIRD if the choice is between Republican, Dem or Tea Party.

Tea party has proven to be a big force, whether or not you think they are all nazi's or not. Your right, they may split the vote, but they certainly will not vote democrat.


Honestly in my mind we are going to lose either way here: If HC reform helps dems win, that's a loss, if the republicans win, well we know after the last 8 years what they stand for, so that's a loss.

Either way we lose.


Disclaimer: Sorry if I said anything too extreme here, I am trashed as hell and if I said anything stupid I will go through tomorrow and edit it out so as not to make the forum look bad, but I just feel it's unfair to claim that the dems just sat down and voted on this without pulling any kickbacks and back room deals, because the record clearly shows that they did.

Like I said, either way we lose here, but I am glad the dems brought us SOME kind of reform, in that there is no more pre-existing clause or lifetime caps etc. The republicans certainly couldn't have even gotten that far.

[snupy]

However, I feel that for the most part this bill is at least a step in the right direction.

I agree, but I also don't think it will remain in its present form. My main concern was that health care rationing by pre-existing condition and policy recission end.

Are you trying to claim the democrats as a whole have been fully supportive of the patriot act for the last several years, and have not been protesting it's overbearing abuse of American privacy rights?

*sigh* Provide a direct quote and post number where I have ever claimed such and I will be more than happy to address it. (Did you learn to debate from the anti-abortionists?)

Funny, because that's what I always say, and yet you rail against me like I am some kind of right wing wacko.

Waht I do is press you for evidence of your claims, usually when you have wondered into some conspiracy theory wilderness.

In this very post you are citing shit the heritage foundation said, as though I were a conservative and therefore should relate to it. I don't care what the heritage foundation or anyone else says. You do equally as much "assuming" as anyone else here.

What I posted about the Heritage Foundation had nothing to do with you personally, or your beliefs. I know you distrust both the parties as do I.

I said that X is already happening, so how can you mandate that X continue to happen and call it change?

Because case A is unfunded and case B is funded and solves several other problems that rippled out from the root of the original problem.

It's just the same old system, except you are mandated to support the failing system.

How can it be the same if the problem is unfunded but the solution is funded?

First of all, NO IT DID NOT. They claimed that once everyone bought into car insurance that the premiums would lower, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT, and they continue to go up.

1. The costs of everything goes up over time.
2. It DID solve the problem of people getting in accidents and having no way to cover the costs due to lack of insurance. Get in an accident today and usually your insurance covers your car and the other party's insurance pays for theirs.
3. Maybe you should switch to State Farm. My insurance is DIRT CHEAP with them.

But this is NOT car insurance. You should be smart enough to know the difference.

You should be smart enough to see the similarities. In both cases, it is very easy to incur expenses far beyond one's ability to pay those expenses. Insurance can be a solution to the problem, given certain conditions, like the elimination of rationing by pre-existing condition or policy recission.

That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying that just because I was born on American soil, I have to buy a certain companies product.

Cite the specific part of the bill that demands we must buy a certain companies' product.

Why are you citing republicans as though that makes it more legit?

I don't cite the information because it 'makes it more legit.' I cite the information for the following reasons:

1. It shows the hypocrisy of the Republicans in the issue.
2. It shows the failure of the Republicans in the debate.
3. It shows the failure was due to turning the volume up to hysterical levels, leaving the Republicans as uncredible sources on the issue, which also refers back to number 1 above.
4. Citing this information refers back to SEVERAL other points I have raised here.
5. Nothing gets done in our government, unless it goes through either the Republicans, Democrats or a coalition involving both parties.

How about this, F*ck Romney, F*ck the heritage foundation, and F*ck anyone who wants to FORCE me to buy something just for being alive.

How bout F*ck those who don't want to pay for insurance, when they know they can't afford to self insure, which means if they get sick, the REST of us have to pay for their treatment?

And saying it's historic just because no one was able to do it in the past doesn't make sense. I guess Bush's passing of the patriot act was "historic" because no one was able to strip us of that many freedoms before. Yay for historicalness, yaaaaay.

It's historic because every major western democracy has had guaranteed health care for years and years and years. Every major western democracy has LOWER health care costs than we do in the US for years and years and years. Every major democracy does not WASTE 60% of their bankruptcy courts' time in medical bankruptcy cases. THAT's why it's historic.

[sgreger1]

Is ObamaCare headed for a Supreme Court smackdown?

First State to give the finger to Obamacare mandate (shakes 8-Ball): Tennessee

Minnesota's own Rep. Crazy Eyes has announced plans to introduce a bill to repeal healthcare reform

Republican candidates already campaigning on the platform of overturning health care legislation


This thing will be in court for years. More than half of the states have legislation pending to stop it from happening. Good idea or not, it's not over yet.

[snupy]

Lol, you are fooling yourself snupy. With all due respect, every poll and indicator points to dems loosing seats in november.

Proof? Mid-terms usually depend on the popularity of the president. Obama's numbers are up since yesterday's vote, which is not to say his numbers have ever been particularly low. Additionally, the Tea Partiers have the potential to split the Republican vote, although I doubt ANY poll could account for that possibility.

I think the republicans screwed themselves in many ways, but they will still pick up the seat, and then we can enjoy another 6 years of fighting with them.

I certainly wouldn't suggest at this point the Republicans will gain NO seats.

This is all speculation, so we will see in november, but I maintain that the dems WILL lose some seats.

I concede that as a possiblity, but I won't say it is assured, because if the Tea Partiers split the Republican vote, that will HURT the Republicans in the mid-terms, rather than help.

Tea party has proven to be a big force, whether or not you think they are all nazi's or not. Your right, they may split the vote, but they certainly will not vote democrat.

The Tea Partiers are not nazis, although they do have some extremist freaks hanging on the outer fringes. They appear to be fiscal conservatives only, having dropped socially conservative ideas (thus the split with the Republicans), if the quotes by their own leaders in the press are to be believed. Their leaders have stated they do not vote based on labels and would welcome either Republicans or Democrats who support their policies, but one study I read showed only 11% were Dems.

Honestly in my mind we are going to lose either way here: If HC reform helps dems win, that's a loss,

Obama and the Dems already won with the passage of the legilsation. The rise in Obama's numbers is the proof. If he maintains those numbers, or even raises them, that will only serve to maintain Dem seats in the mid-terms. Historical trends show the party in power holds seats depending on presidential popularity/approval.

if the republicans win, well we know after the last 8 years what they stand for, so that's a loss.

If enough Republicans did gain seats they could at least act as a foil on the Dems, but they would first have to drop the chicken little, sky is falling, cats will lie with dogs, the end is nigh cuz Obama won, mentality. They need to be able to offer REASONABLE solutions and answers and stop coming across as escaped mental patients without their meds.

Sorry if I said anything too extreme here

You're fine, as usual.

Like I said, either way we lose here, but I am glad the dems brought us SOME kind of reform, in that there is no more pre-existing clause or lifetime caps etc. The republicans certainly couldn't have even gotten that far.

Could you imagine wanting to divorce your wife, but you can't, because she has a pre-existing condition and is on your insurance? Or finding a better paying job, but you can't take it, because you have a pre-existing condition and would have no guarantee whatsoever that you could get reinsured if you switched jobs? Where is the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' in situations like that?