Republicans still trying to kill Net Neutrality - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

SuckOnThis · 06-12-2015, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It's been proven that many Republicans whom hate obamacare, think ACA is great... btw it was Republicans whom coined the name Obamacare. They intended it as an insult but Obama beat them at their own game took the name and ran with it. ]

L-Pink · 06-12-2015, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Didn't they do away with auto insurance requirements at one point a few years ago due to so many people not having it? I think it's required again, but I could of swore I remember hearing something about FL dropping the requirement for coverage.

Minimum requirements now are 10 grand collision and 10 grand medical. There was a large difference in my insurance when I moved policies from Kentucky to Florida. Same company, same coverage just a difference based on uninsured motorists.

The fact at least 1 in 4 cars is being driven illegally and not even a token effort is made to stop it is pitiful. If it wasn't costing everyone else money I wouldn't care.

Funny, my motorcycle costs more than my car, the coverage is more comprehensive, I use it 90% of the time and it's 4 times cheaper than my SUV.

baddog · 06-12-2015, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

The United States would not tax you if you renounced your citizenship. The United States is not forcing you to remain a US citizen.

Such a dumb fuck you are

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Well when a cop pulls over a motorists for a moving violation, the cop requires the motorist to show proof of insurance. In California at least.

You are so ignorant. All you have to do is show proof of Financial Responsibility Financial Responsibility (Insurance) Requirements for Vehicle Registration (FFVR 18)

TCLGirls · 06-12-2015, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Well when a cop pulls over a motorists for a moving violation, the cop requires the motorist to show proof of insurance. In California at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Such a dumb fuck you are

You are so ignorant. All you have to do is show proof of Financial Responsibility Financial Responsibility (Insurance) Requirements for Vehicle Registration (FFVR 18)

From the link you cited:

"Financial responsibility (commonly known as insurance)..."

2MuchMark · 06-12-2015, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

It has FORCED people to get insurance and TAXED them if they did not. Only insurance companies have been helped.

baddog · 06-12-2015, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

From the link you cited:

"Financial responsibility (commonly known as insurance)..."

Scroll down the page idiot:

What Are the Types of Financial Responsibility?

Motor vehicle liability insurance policy.
Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV.
DMV-issued self-insurance certificate.
Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

TCLGirls · 06-12-2015, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Scroll down the page idiot:

What Are the Types of Financial Responsibility?

Motor vehicle liability insurance policy.
Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV.
DMV-issued self-insurance certificate.
Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

Those things you mentioned (bond, cash deposit) are insurance. Because those things you mentioned are insurance against damages/injury that a motorist might cause.

I never said an insurance policy is required of all motorists, I said proof of insurance is required. A motorist would have to prove one of the things you cited from the DMV website, all of which are insurance.

baddog · 06-12-2015, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Those things you mentioned (bond, cash deposit) are insurance. Because those things you mentioned are insurance against damages/injury that a motorist might cause.

I never said an insurance policy is required of all motorists, I said proof of insurance is required. A motorist would have to prove one of the things you cited from the DMV website, all of which are insurance.

Go ahead and twist it; the point is no one must PURCHASE auto insurance; no one is required by law to have homeowners insurance. ONLY health insurance is mandatory.

Barry-xlovecam · 06-12-2015, 11:53 AM

If you have assets you would be foolish to insure at auto liability state mandated minimums unless you want to chance having to live in a cardboard box after the lawyers and courts get done with you ...

What the fuck do Obamacare or auto insurance costs have to do with net neutrally escapes me.

dyna mo · 06-12-2015, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Those things you mentioned (bond, cash deposit) are insurance. Because those things you mentioned are insurance against damages/injury that a motorist might cause.

I never said an insurance policy is required of all motorists, I said proof of insurance is required. A motorist would have to prove one of the things you cited from the DMV website, all of which are insurance.

as per usual, you have no idea what you are talking about and still can't read good.

insurance is a form of financial responsibility, not vice versa. proof of financial responsibility is required, not proof of insurance.

TCLGirls · 06-12-2015, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Go ahead and twist it; the point is no one must PURCHASE auto insurance; no one is required by law to have homeowners insurance. ONLY health insurance is mandatory.

The point is never said any motorist was forced to purchase auto insurance. I said all motorist must prove they have insurance. And the CA DMV defines insurance to be insurance policies as well as surety bonds and deposits.

TCLGirls · 06-12-2015, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

as per usual, you have no idea what you are talking about and still can't read good.

insurance is a form of financial responsibility, not vice versa. proof of financial responsibility is required, not proof of insurance.

So when CA DMV defines "financial responsibility" as insurance that includes surety bonds and deposits, those two things are not really insurance? LOL ok if you say so.

L-Pink · 06-12-2015, 05:08 PM

crockett · 06-12-2015, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Go ahead and twist it; the point is no one must PURCHASE auto insurance; no one is required by law to have homeowners insurance. ONLY health insurance is mandatory.

Here is the problem with what you are saying which you choose to ignore. Forcing people to buy health insurance saves states money. When people don't have health insurance they go to the hospital emergency room when they need treatment. These people don't pay those bills because they can't afford insurance so they can't afford getting charged $2,500 for an emergency room visit (if they are lucky).

The hospital then gets paid back by the state using your tax dollars and mine. The "fiscally responsible" thing to do is force everyone to buy health insurance because in the long run it's cheaper than paying for all the people whom use the emergency room as their free doctor's visit.

Rochard · 06-12-2015, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

No. Since you live in the State of California we will deal with their laws. You can get a bond and avoid liability insurance. If you owe money on the car the lender will have you get collision. No one is forced to own a car.

The only people that pay homeowners insurance is people that own homes. No one is forced to own a home and they and not fined or taxed for not owning a home.

You cannot compare forcing someone to purchase health insurance with car or home insurance because those are voluntary.

I own a house and am required to have home owners insurance, and I own a car and am required to have car insurance. That's not open to discussion. Any other argument is just plain childish.

baddog · 06-12-2015, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Here is the problem with what you are saying which you choose to ignore. Forcing people to buy health insurance saves states money. When people don't have health insurance they go to the hospital emergency room when they need treatment. These people don't pay those bills because they can't afford insurance so they can't afford getting charged $2,500 for an emergency room visit (if they are lucky).

The hospital then gets paid back by the state using your tax dollars and mine. The "fiscally responsible" thing to do is force everyone to buy health insurance because in the long run it's cheaper than paying for all the people whom use the emergency room as their free doctor's visit.

So I am paying for you to go to the emergency room; got it. Not everyone goes to the doctor or emergency room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I own a house and am required to have home owners insurance, and I own a car and am required to have car insurance. That's not open to discussion. Any other argument is just plain childish.

The lender requires you to have fire insurance on your home; the government could not give two shits.

You do not have to drive a car and you do not have to purchase liability insurance if you use any of the methods mentioned above.

Health insurance is now mandatory or I am fined/taxed for not having it. I have lived for 25+ years without needing health insurance, why should I be forced to buy something I refuse to use?

Sorry if it is too deep for you to comprehend the difference.

directfiesta · 06-13-2015, 07:30 AM

crockett · 06-13-2015, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

So I am paying for you to go to the emergency room; got it. Not everyone goes to the doctor or emergency room.

The lender requires you to have fire insurance on your home; the government could not give two shits.

You do not have to drive a car and you do not have to purchase liability insurance if you use any of the methods mentioned above.

Health insurance is now mandatory or I am fined/taxed for not having it. I have lived for 25+ years without needing health insurance, why should I be forced to buy something I refuse to use?

Sorry if it is too deep for you to comprehend the difference.

No dildo.. you don't pay for me, because I'm responsible and have insurance. I also live in a different state. However yes you are paying taxes which go to pay hospital bills of the uninsured in your state. In fact Cali is one of the hardest hit.

You should welcome Obamacare because in the long run it will save the state money..

2MuchMark · 06-13-2015, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

You should welcome Obamacare because in the long run it will save the state money..

baddog · 06-13-2015, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

No dildo.. you don't pay for me, because I'm responsible and have insurance. I also live in a different state. However yes you are paying taxes which go to pay hospital bills of the uninsured in your state. In fact Cali is one of the hardest hit.

You should welcome Obamacare because in the long run it will save the state money..

Funny, it isn't the state that fines/taxes me for not having health insurance. So I am supporting you and your ilk.

Robbie · 06-13-2015, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

No dildo.. you don't pay for me, because I'm responsible and have insurance. I also live in a different state. However yes you are paying taxes which go to pay hospital bills of the uninsured in your state.

You should welcome Obamacare because in the long run it will save the state money..

crockett, you keep repeating this over and over. I've never heard of the govt. paying hospitals (which are private business run by huge corporations) anything.

But you keep claiming that. So I used this new fangled thing called "google" and typed in "does govt. pay for unpaid hospital bills"

Nope. Couldn't find one thing that said the govt. would ever pay a big hospital corporation for any losses.

directfiesta · 06-13-2015, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

crockett, you keep repeating this over and over. I've never heard of the govt. paying hospitals (which are private business run by huge corporations) anything.

But you keep claiming that. So I used this new fangled thing called "google" and typed in "does govt. pay for unpaid hospital bills"

Nope. Couldn't find one thing that said the govt. would ever pay a big hospital corporation for any losses.

I have no dog in this fight ... as I am insurred when I am in the USA...

Here is an excerpt of an article of 2011 :

Quote:

Jack Hadley, senior health services researcher at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., pointed out that uninsured people are charged as much as two-thirds more than what insured people are charged because insurers are able to negotiate prices.
His research has found that privately insured individuals don't end up paying higher premiums to make up for the uninsured because hospitals that serve lower-income families don't have a lot of patients with insurance. He said the government pays about 75% of those unpaid hospital bills either by direct payment or through a disproportionate payment of Medicaid.
"It affects taxes, not premiums," he said. "The privately insured are still paying for it."
Up to $49 billion unpaid by uninsured for hospitalizations - USATODAY.com

Obviously, someone has to pay for it , either the hospital ( that would then increase rates of services provided to compensate ), the governement , individuals ( going bankrupt ), ....

Meanwhile, back to net neutrality , why are republicans against what the majority of the public wants ? They always say that they want the gov out off people business .... ????

Robbie · 06-14-2015, 08:35 PM

directfiesta, nobody has to pay for it. At least not the govt.

If that were true, then these giant corporations that own the hospitals wouldn't always be making record profits.

Here in the U.S. they price gouge. Then that allows the insurance company to claim that they were presented with a certain amount for the bill.
Then there are no real "negotiations". There is a "real" price that is hidden from the consumer. And that's what the insurance company pays out to the hospital. And then the insurance company uses the fake price-gouged price to raise your premiums on you.

No, they don't "negotiate" millions and millions of hospital bills. The hospital DOES have real pricing. They just don't show it to consumers.

If anything, an argument could be made that the high prices that hospitals charge are caused by non-insured people skipping on their bills.

But IF that were true (which it isn't...as I said RECORD profits for these giant hospital corporations), then we should all be seeing the price of procedures in hospitals go WAY DOWN thanks to Obamacare.

Guess what? They haven't. So that excuse is not valid either (though I already knew that).

Anyway, no...the govt. doesn't "bailout" the hospital industry every day. Matter of fact, I'm unaware that the hospital corporations have ever needed govt. money. They are rolling in money...just like the insurance companies are.

As for net neutrality. I first heard of it and said "Yeah, this is what's needed".

Then I saw a discussion from adult industry leaders on Xbiz saying that "NO" it was not what it seemed.
And now it seems that since Republicans have come out against it...it's the "good" thing to have this bill pass (just because Republicans don't want it)

The politicians and the media seem to be real good at taking what should be simple...and make it a confusing issue.

crockett · 06-14-2015, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

crockett, you keep repeating this over and over. I've never heard of the govt. paying hospitals (which are private business run by huge corporations) anything.

But you keep claiming that. So I used this new fangled thing called "google" and typed in "does govt. pay for unpaid hospital bills"

Nope. Couldn't find one thing that said the govt. would ever pay a big hospital corporation for any losses.

Up to $49 billion unpaid by uninsured for hospitalizations - USATODAY.com

Seriously Robbie it's pretty fucking common knowledge..

Quote:

His research has found that privately insured individuals don't end up paying higher premiums to make up for the uninsured because hospitals that serve lower-income families don't have a lot of patients with insurance. He said the government pays about 75% of those unpaid hospital bills either by direct payment or through a disproportionate payment of Medicaid.

Your googling skills sucks btw..

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...hospital+costs

Robbie · 06-14-2015, 10:14 PM

Your first link says nothing about govt. paying anything.

And your second link to a google search also doesn't show that govt. pays hospitals anything.

06-14-2015, 08:35 PM	#73
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	directfiesta, nobody has to pay for it. At least not the govt. If that were true, then these giant corporations that own the hospitals wouldn't always be making record profits. Here in the U.S. they price gouge. Then that allows the insurance company to claim that they were presented with a certain amount for the bill. Then there are no real "negotiations". There is a "real" price that is hidden from the consumer. And that's what the insurance company pays out to the hospital. And then the insurance company uses the fake price-gouged price to raise your premiums on you. No, they don't "negotiate" millions and millions of hospital bills. The hospital DOES have real pricing. They just don't show it to consumers. If anything, an argument could be made that the high prices that hospitals charge are caused by non-insured people skipping on their bills. But IF that were true (which it isn't...as I said RECORD profits for these giant hospital corporations), then we should all be seeing the price of procedures in hospitals go WAY DOWN thanks to Obamacare. Guess what? They haven't. So that excuse is not valid either (though I already knew that). Anyway, no...the govt. doesn't "bailout" the hospital industry every day. Matter of fact, I'm unaware that the hospital corporations have ever needed govt. money. They are rolling in money...just like the insurance companies are. As for net neutrality. I first heard of it and said "Yeah, this is what's needed". Then I saw a discussion from adult industry leaders on Xbiz saying that "NO" it was not what it seemed. And now it seems that since Republicans have come out against it...it's the "good" thing to have this bill pass (just because Republicans don't want it) The politicians and the media seem to be real good at taking what should be simple...and make it a confusing issue. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

06-14-2015, 10:14 PM	#75
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Your first link says nothing about govt. paying anything. And your second link to a google search also doesn't show that govt. pays hospitals anything. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

06-12-2015, 11:53 AM	#59
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	If you have assets you would be foolish to insure at auto liability state mandated minimums unless you want to chance having to live in a cardboard box after the lawyers and courts get done with you ... What the fuck do Obamacare or auto insurance costs have to do with net neutrally escapes me.

06-12-2015, 05:08 PM	#63
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151

06-13-2015, 07:30 AM	#67
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Punta Cana, DR Posts: 29,586