Rand Paul Demands Fetal Personhood in Flood Insurance Bill

Quote from Ryu-bom : Can people namely those that lean to the right stick with the actual topic, instead of trying to weasel around it or flat out ignore it... That he sneakly try to move something else in a bill meant for something totally UNRELATED Or is this just a discussion on flood insurance...?

That's funny!

But I do believe there should be bans on putting unrelated shit in bills.
Unlike you though, I will call out both sides for doing this.
It happens all the time. Plenty of pet protects to go around.
Wrong is wrong.

Quote from TRNT : Then clearly some adjustments must be made. 22.5 times in 45 years might require doubling the premiums. But it also makes sense to institute other changes such as for example to cap looses like some HMOs who say $1,000,000 lifetime benefits.

But I thought you liked Obamacare?

http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=11

Quote from Xygonn : But I thought you liked Obamacare? http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=11

Really, xygonn, what kinda logic says if you are for a lifetime benefit cap for those who keep rebuilding in flood zones, you must be also for a lifetime cap for medical expenses?

Quote from TRNT : Really, xygonn, what kinda logic says if you are for a lifetime benefit cap for those who keep rebuilding in flood zones, you must be also for a lifetime cap for medical expenses?

Mostly because you used the HMO example, which is now illegal. So, you proposed a now illegal solution (for medical insurance) to fix one of the problems with flood insurance. Likewise, you'll soon find out just what no lifetime limits means to YOUR premium. A few chronically, desperately ill people will dominate our total medical costs. I expect the mean to be around the 85th percentile (maybe even higher!).

Quote from Xygonn : Mostly because you used the HMO example, which is now illegal. So, you proposed a now illegal solution (for medical insurance) to fix one of the problems with flood insurance. Likewise, you'll soon find out just what no lifetime limits means to YOUR premium. A few chronically, desperately ill people will dominate our total medical costs. I expect the mean to be around the 85th percentile (maybe even higher!).

What the heck do you expect those chronically, desperately ill people do? Go away and quietly die? Americans that I know will not stand for that. Perhaps you could start a new colony and institute such social mores. And some people who agree with you on this, call themselves pro-life. Pro-life, my .....

Quote from TRNT : What the heck do you expect those chronically, desperately ill people do? Go away and quietly die? Americans that I know will not stand for that. Perhaps you could start a new colony and institute such social mores. And some people who agree with you on this, call themselves pro-life. Pro-life, my .....

Everyone dies. It's just a matter of how and why. Is it because they are too poor? Is it because those in charge of rationing care say enough has been spent? Is it because the ambulance was delayed thirty minutes? Since care is a limited resource, there must be some rationing, either by some "death panel", by monetary ability, or waiting in the queue. Which do you prefer?

Quote from Xygonn : Everyone dies. It's just a matter of how and why. Is it because they are too poor? Is it because those in charge of rationing care say enough has been spent? Is it because the ambulance was delayed thirty minutes? Since care is a limited resource, there must be some rationing, either by some "death panel", by monetary ability, or waiting in the queue. Which do you prefer?

First, people who bitch about that should stop calling themselves pro-life..

Second, why not use the German/French/Canadian system?

Third, I would first cut other excesses in the health system before I institute "death panels."

Fourth, which do you prefer?

Quote from TRNT : First, people who bitch about that should stop calling themselves pro-life.. Second, why not use the German/French/Canadian system? Third, I would first cut other excesses in the health system before I institute "death panels." Fourth, which do you prefer?

First, I don't know that I qualify as pro-life. I could be entirely to moderate on the issue.

Second, the German/French/Canadian systems aren't so bad, especially the less stringent requirements and lower tuition costs to become a doctor, as well as their protections from lawsuits. Certainly less bad than a super regulated insurance system.

Third, I agree there is a lot of ways to cut medical costs, but at the end of the day, there will be insufficient care for everyone that is sick or dying. Whether that is organs for transplant or other bottlenecks.

Fourth, I think that those who pay for themselves do deserve a better spot in the queue than those that do not (all else equal). Obviously kids should go before the elderly, and low risk of complications before high risk of complications. So really, a hybrid method of having money and return on procedure. Expensive treatments shouldn't just be given to everyone regardless of ability to pay. For example, it's not fair to society to make everyone pay for life support on someone that is in a coma with no chance to recover. If a super rich family wants to keep granddad on a respirator, that is their business.