Obama Gives Himself "A solid B+"

#76
#76
droski said:
the problem with including people with preexisting conditions is that any person under the age of 40 is going to say "why get health insurance while i'm healthy?" i've probably paid tens of thousands of health premiums in the past years and probably gotten back in the mid hundreds. i've been subsidizing the sick in my pool. i only have health insurance for emergencies. if you allow someone with preexisting conditions to enroll you are basically ensuring the only peopel that will enroll are those with preexisting conditions.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the definition of insurance? Key is, the coverage will be there when you do need it. If people are allowed to just go along until they "need" insurance, no money for coverage will be there. This "pool" of money has to be built up and everyone that wants insurance should pay into it. (do not come back with the "some can't pay" arguement, they are taken care of)
 
#77
#77
MG1968 said:
how are they covered now? the last time I checked, people aren't "dying in the streets by the thousands" because they can't get medical care.

If a person can afford a cell phone, cable tv, a couple cartons of cigarettes a month, etc. he or she can afford a basic level of health care.
Click to expand...

You and I both know that it doesn't take "thousands dying in the street" now to matter. Whether it is 1 or 10,000...the principle doesn't change. I don't see anything wrong with making affordable options available to those with pre-existing conditions because right now they don't qualify for any coverage whatsoever under most plans.

Besides, the majority of those who can't get insurance because they have pre-existing conditions just show up at the ER to get the help they need anyway, and the responsible ones of us pick up the tab. I don't know about you, but providing some sort of affordable health insurance so these people aren't walking in empty handed seems like a good first step to attacking the cost problem for everybody else.
 
#78
#78
MontereyVol said:
I remember going to see the houses my parents grew up in in Charleston, WV. My mom grew up in a house that would fit into my master bedroom and her father was middle class working for Union Carbide. My dad was considered rich and his house was only a quarter the size of the one I have now.

Eventually the size of homes are going to have to reduce and its probably starting already. I pity anyone who would want to be president over the next couple of decades.
Click to expand...

I am going to sell mine as a tri-plex in 20 years. :)
 
#80
#80
rjd970 said:
You and I both know that it doesn't take "thousands dying in the street" now to matter. Whether it is 1 or 10,000...the principle doesn't change. I don't see anything wrong with making affordable options available to those with pre-existing conditions because right now they don't qualify for any coverage whatsoever under most plans.

Besides, the majority of those who can't get insurance because they have pre-existing conditions just show up at the ER to get the help they need anyway, and the responsible ones of us pick up the tab. I don't know about you, but providing some sort of affordable health insurance so these people aren't walking in empty handed seems like a good first step to attacking the cost problem for everybody else.[/QUOTE]

You and I are still going to be paying for that "affordable" coverage.
Click to expand...
 
#81
#81
droski said:
why not? they cost more. they have to pay more for life insurance too. is that ridiculous as well?
Click to expand...

I think your comparison is ridiculous.

Who needs life insurance to live, or relieve suffering?
 
#84
#84
T-TownVol said:
You and I are still going to be paying for that "affordable" coverage.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but not near as much across the board. Some coverage is better than no coverage. And if providers know they will get reimbursed then there is no reason for them to charge me $20 for a cup of orange juice when I go to the hospital.
 
#86
#86
rjd970 said:
Maybe, but not near as much across the board. Some coverage is better than no coverage. And if providers know they will get reimbursed then there is no reason for them to charge me $20 for a cup of orange juice when I go to the hospital.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world maybe. We have politicians that are willing to offer a Senator $600 million for his vote.
Costs will not go down.....EVER.
 
#88
#88
rjd970 said:
Maybe, but not near as much across the board. Some coverage is better than no coverage. And if providers know they will get reimbursed then there is no reason for them to charge me $20 for a cup of orange juice when I go to the hospital.
Click to expand...

you get billed $20 for the cup of OJ because there are people who walk in (or are carried in on a gurney) run up a bill into the tens of thousands, and then walk away with no intention of ever paying. There are also people who will sue a doctor or hospital if their feelings get hurt. Those costs have to be paid.

Health care is a business, it's not a right. I do agree that some measures can, and need, be taken to aid the chronically uninsured but I think we both agree that destroying the entire system to accommodate maybe 10 million people is simply not worth it.
 
#89
#89
rjd970 said:
I think your comparison is ridiculous.

Who needs life insurance to live, or relieve suffering?
Click to expand...

this is where you lose me. why is it any different than any other service you pay for? who decided high risk individuals should get subsidized by everyone else?
 
#90
#90
rjd970 said:
As far as healthcare goes, I would be fine with no public option and a set of standard private plans people can choose from so people can join large groups and buy insurance at lower cost. Something like that could work with government regulation on if/how coverage is dropped and no penalty for pre-existing conditions. It would be nice to see government subsidized incentives for healthy behavior too.

.
Click to expand...

I don't know about other states, but Texas basically has that option now. If you are turned down by two insurance companies you can apply to the state and they can put you in an assigned risk pool (large # of people). I have a client currently in that pool (they are self employed) at an annual cost of just over $10,000.

That is probably about the same as your costs except they don't have an employer to pick up a portion of the costs.
 
#91
#91
droski said:
this is where you lose me. why is it any different than any other service you pay for? who decided high risk individuals should get subsidized by everyone else?
Click to expand...

Because we are talking life and limb...literally...here.

Why is it any different than any other service you pay for? Let me think....something tells me we wouldn't see the ferver and debate we are witnessing right now if we are talking about life insurance, or any other kind of insurance. There is a qualitative difference with this industry, and comparing it to life insurance or any other service is nonsensical.
 
#92
#92
MG1968 said:
Health care is a business, it's not a right. I do agree that some measures can, and need, be taken to aid the chronically uninsured but I think we both agree that destroying the entire system to accommodate maybe 10 million people is simply not worth it.
Click to expand...

We're on the same page here, I just think 10 million people are significant, and should have the same access as everybody else. Again, I'm not for universal healthcare, I'm for universal access. What anybody does with that access is up to them.
 
#93
#93
MontereyVol said:
I remember going to see the houses my parents grew up in in Charleston, WV. My mom grew up in a house that would fit into my master bedroom and her father was middle class working for Union Carbide. My dad was considered rich and his house was only a quarter the size of the one I have now.

Eventually the size of homes are going to have to reduce and its probably starting already. I pity anyone who would want to be president over the next couple of decades.
Click to expand...

That was because people bought a house they could pay for, and banks didn't qualifying everyone for a loan. Completely different mindset. People lived on what they made and didn't borrow money for the most part.

That's how people in this country should live now.
 
#94
#94
rjd970 said:
Because we are talking life and limb...literally...here.

Why is it any different than any other service you pay for? Let me think....something tells me we wouldn't see the ferver and debate we are witnessing right now if we are talking about life insurance, or any other kind of insurance. There is a qualitative difference with this industry, and comparing it to life insurance or any other service is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

don't be so dramatic. how many american die each year because they don't have health insurance? not many. why do you think the hospitals are overrun with illegals and other uninsured? if we weren't caring for these people they surely wouldn't show up. what you are really talking about providing PREMIUM health insurance to everyone.

rjd970 said:
We're on the same page here, I just think 10 million people are significant, and should have the same access as everybody else. Again, I'm not for universal healthcare, I'm for universal access. What anybody does with that access is up to them.
Click to expand...

people need to stop expecting the govt to bail them out of their problems. medicaid already covers all the poor "children." the people obama wants to cover are either too cheap to get health insurance or just people leaching the system.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top